Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2022 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 827 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxExemption from Entry tax - Iron & Steel (MS Angle, MS Channel, MS Plate, MS Beam, etc.) used in expansion of Cent Plan - capital goods or not - MS Angle, MS Channel, MS Plate, MS Beam, etc. used by the applicant in expansion of Cement Plant - N/N. 927 dated 18.02.2003 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the revisionist is manufacturer of cement. For expansion of its unit/cement plant, the revisionist purchased iron & steel and used the same for construction of various buildings, sheds, etc. The revisionist claimed the iron & steel, purchased and used for construction of various buildings for expansion of its unit, as “capital goods” so that benefit of input tax credit can be granted to it - Bare perusal of section 2(f) of the VAT Act it has been clearly stated that “capital goods” means any plant, machine, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tool, appliance or electrical installation used for manufacture or processing of any goods for sale by the dealer. Further, perusal of section 13(1)(b) of the VAT Act would reveal that the dealer shall be entitled for claim of ITC only in respect of taxable goods purchased. On close scrutiny of the submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist and the certificate brought on record to justify its claim, would clearly show that various buildings have been constructed for various other purposes, which have been tried to bring within the definition of “capital goods”. Further, the said certificate of Charted Accountant nowhere mentions as to how the consumption of iron & steel is directly connected with the plant & machinery or its accessories or its components - Only by referring or describing the user will not help the assessee for treating the iron & steel used for the constructions of buildings as “capital goods”, more precisely, as “plant & machinery”. In absence of any material having been brought on record, the claim “capital goods” by the revisionist has rightly been rejected by the authorities below. No case is made out for interference by this Court with the impugned order. Revision dismissed.
|