Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 952 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRe-assessment order - claim for additional input tax credit at the rate of 4% as specified in Section 14 of the Act instead of 3% as specified in the notification dated 30.03.2007 - rejection of claim on the ground that the petitioner had not made such claim either in the original returns or revised returns - period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 - HELD THAT:- The Act has been enacted with an object to replace the then existing sales tax system in line with national consensus for bringing in reforms in commodity taxation. One of the objects of the Act is to provide for set off of all tax paid at the earlier points in respect of goods sold against tax payable defined as output tax, at any point, the set off scheme being called as input rebating. In the instant case, the assessee had claimed the benefit of input tax credit at the rate of 4%. However, subsequently, a claim was made for additional input tax credit at the rate of 1% on account of an error in disallowing input tax credit at the rate of 4% as specified in Section 14 of the Act instead of 3% as specified in Notification dated 30.03.2007. No time limit has been prescribed under the provisions of the Act for making a claim for additional input tax credit. Therefore, the claim for eligible input tax credit is an indefeasible right which is available to the dealer under the Act without any limitation of time for claiming such credit - In the instant case, the government has prescribed the lower rate of 3% by Notification dated 30.03.2007 and therefore the aforesaid rate was applicable for the tax period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the aforesaid statutory benefit and Section 35 of the Act does not curtail the entitlement of the dealer to such statutory benefit to it if such return is not filed within the time prescribed therein. From the communication dated 19.02.2020, it is evident that the tax has not been collected by the petitioner from Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner by mistake paid the tax at a higher rate and when Toyota Kirloskar Motors Ltd. has confirmed that such a tax has not been collected by the petitioner, Section 43(1) of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the case and the order of forfeiture is illegal. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent - Petition allowed.
|