Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2016 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 788 - KERALA HIGH COURTClaiming special rebate in terms of Section 12(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 - The total output tax payable by the petitioner during the relevant years was more than the special rebate claimed for the purchase turnover as per Section 6(2). However, while making the assessment, the assessing officer had only given a special rebate at 4% of the purchase turnover for the year 2011-12 and 5% for the year 2012-13. This according to the petitioner is on a wrong interpretation of the fourth proviso to Section 12(1) of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the vires of the statute viz., fourth proviso to Section 12(1) and alternatively contending that the method adopted by the assessing officer in giving rebate is absolutely wrong. Held that:- As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when Section 12(1) gives a benefit and the benefit is restricted by way of a proviso, the proviso has to be read as it is without any addition or deletion. Each word in the proviso has to be given a meaning and while giving such an interpretation, the only possible view that could be taken is with reference to the amount of special rebate that the dealer claims with reference to the output tax payable and not with reference to the rate of tax. The assessing authorities were not justified in limiting the rebate to 4% and 5% as the case may be. The petitioner was entitled for rebate for the entire amount paid in terms of Section 12(1) and even going by the fourth proviso, since the output tax payable does not exceed the total claim for rebate under Section 6(2). - Decided in favor of petitioner.
|