9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturing process and for the preparation of the oil and transporting the same to the other State by way of stock transfer, both are substantiated by way of forms C and F and therefore, the order passed by the lower authorities disallowing a portion of the input tax is erroneous. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the activity of manufacture and sale of sunflower oil and cake besides trading in sunflower seeds, sunflower oil and soyabean oil. It is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. For the month of January 2006, they have filed monthly return of turnover in form VAT100 declaring net tax carried forward for succeeding month at Rs. 3,83,003. The case was taken up for reassessment proceedings unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s held that the assessee is not entitled to get input-tax rebate on the corresponding purchase of raw material consumed as the same is consumed in the manufacture of finished goods as such the non-deductible input tax is worked out and a demand was raised. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal, which came to be dismissed. The assessee appealed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal on a careful consideration of the entire material on record held that the assessee has maintained separate day-to-day stock account in respect of S.F. seeds purchased in the course of inter-State trade. It has further maintained separate day-to-day stock account in respect of S.F. oil produced from such S.F. seeds. The assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale of seeds within the State and outside the State. When the accounts maintained by the assessee is not found fault with and when he has produced all the said records before the assessing authority and when the assessing authority did not find fault with the said account or forms C or F, it was not open to them to deny relief to which the assessee was entitled to. In the facts of the case, rule 131 has no application and that is precisely what the Appellate Tribunal has held. The said finding is based on the material on record and is in accordance with law and as such we do not find any infirmity, which calls for any interference. Therefore, the appeal is rejected as no substantial question of law arises, which deserves admission. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
