Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 140 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPower of state of restrict or deny input tax credit (ITC) claim, circular bearing no. 4411 dated 23.01.2013 and Section 6(3)(d) of the UKVAT Act - Admissibility of ITC claim - packaging material, containers etc. - finished goods are removed by way of branch transfer - Held that:- since an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners before Joint Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of impugned order denying ITC claim, therefore, the petitioners can avail the statutory remedy available to them. So far as reliefs relating to setting aside circular dated 23.01.2013, Section 6(3)(d) of the UKVAT Act, does not restrict/deny ITC claim on packaging material, containers etc. purchased locally, used in the manufacture of goods in Uttarakhand and sent outside the State otherwise than by way of “sale”, Section 6(3)(d) of the UKVAT Act denies ITC on packaging material etc. in case of transactions other than by way of sale; issue any writ, order or direction striking down Section 6(3)(d) of the UKVAT Act as being ultra vires or Article 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no. 2 to continue to issue Form XVI as provided under Rule 26(3) of Uttarakhand VAT Rules which are required by the petitioner for import of raw material as well as finished products and direction declaring that the respondent no. 2 has no authority in law to stop issuance of Form XVI as provided under Rule 26(3) of Uttarakhand VAT Rules are concerned, those reliefs have been dealt with by learned Single Judge while deciding WPMS no. 532 of 2013, WPMS no. 1526 of 2014 and WPMS no. 2282 of 2014 on 06.04.2015. The State only wished to provide the benefit of ITC in a limited manner even in respect of raw materials used for production of finished goods, which are stock transferred. We cannot deny the right of the State with its plenary powers of legislation within the field of legislation, which is admittedly and legitimately exercised by it otherwise, the right to raise taxes. It has already been mentioned that special appeals were filed on behalf of Hindustan Unilever Limited against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge without meeting any success. Furthermore, when the SLPs were preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same were also dismissed on 07.12.2015. Since the propositions of law have already been dealt with and discussed by learned Single Judge and Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and SLPs against which have also been dismissed, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by discussing those provisions again. There is no merit in the aforementioned writ petitions. - Decided against the petitioner
|