TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessing authority to contend that a particular mode should be adopted, or that the procedure adopted by the assessee is not rational. It is the petitioner's case that the method of adjustment of input tax against the output tax payable, adopted by them would enable them to avail of the benefit of the balance tax deferment in its entirety which they would otherwise not be in a position to utilize as the period of availment of tax deferment expired by March, 2007. The assessing authority cannot insist on the assessee adopting a particular method which would deny them the benefit of utilization of the balance available tax deferment in its entirety, and instead pay tax. The impugned order of assessment, to the extent the assessing authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had availed of tax deferment benefit of ₹ 22,05,048, leaving the balance to be availed of ₹ 37,05,392. The petitioner claimed the balance incentive of ₹ 17,69,921 for the assessment year 2005-06, and ₹ 19,71,100 for the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner claimed input-tax credit, relatable to the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, and, in the first instance, adjusted the input-tax credit against the output tax payable on its trading activity, and the remaining input-tax credit against the output tax payable by its manufacturing unit. For the assessment year 2005-06, the input-tax credit of ₹ 61,61,364 was adjusted first against the output tax payable on their trading activity of ₹ 36,61,937, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance of ₹ 37.05 lakhs. The petitioner pointed out that the method adopted by them did not fall foul of either the Statutory provisions or the Rules. The first respondent, despite his admission that no rule was prescribed providing for such a method of adjustment, confirmed his proposal holding that it was rational. Accordingly, he passed an order of assessment on October 30, 2009 rejecting the petitioners objections, and raising a demand for ₹ 23,53,400. On the plea that the impugned order of assessment is without jurisdiction, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In his counter-affidavit, the first respondent would submit that the petitioner is basically a manufacturing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cific rule providing for the manner in which he had assessed the petitioner to tax. Under article 265 of the Constitution of India no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law and in the absence of a procedure, similar to the one adopted by him, being prescribed by law it is not open to the assessing authority to contend that a particular mode should be adopted, or that the procedure adopted by the assessee is not rational. It is the petitioner's case that the method of adjustment of input tax against the output tax payable, adopted by them would enable them to avail of the benefit of the balance tax deferment in its entirety which they would otherwise not be in a position to utilize as the period of availment of tax def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
