2012 (3) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... micals from M/s. Morex Petro Chem Ltd., Bangalore during June 2005, July 2005, December 2005 and February 2006 under different invoices. The supplier of the aforesaid chemicals claimed four per cent value added tax. The assessee has paid the same. Subsequently, the said supplier ascertained that the said commodity is taxable at the general/residuary rate of 12.5 per cent. Accordingly, he raised a debit note No. 8 dated July 31, 2006 demanding the tax difference on the aforesaid supplies to an extent of Rs. 1,40,228 on Rs. 16,49,744. On receipt of the above debit note, the assessee sought a clarification from the LVO 50 under a letter dated August 18, 2006 enquiring as to whether the assessee can claim the input tax difference of Rs. 1,40,22 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the law by the assessing authority for the tax period July 2006, there would have been an excess of a tax of Rs. 1,36,837 for that month which could have been set off against the liability for the tax due for December 2006 as a result of which, there would not have been any liability to any balance of net tax for the tax period December 2006 and as a consequence thereof, there would be no justification for the levy of any penalty or interest in this case at all. In the order set out, the true position of the tax liability for the tax period December 2006 if the input tax rebate on the strength of the aforementioned debit note were to have been allowed in the appropriate tax period. From the table which is set out, it is seen that the asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e has remitted the same to the Department in July 2006. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim refund of input tax in July 2006. However, he has put forth the claim six months, thereafter. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, if he had put forth the claim in July 2006, the amount due to the assessee by way of refund was Rs. 1,36,837. Because the claim was made in December 2006, the amount due to him is Rs. 1,04,375. Sub-section (3) of section 30 of the Act deals with when the payment of tax is to be made. It does not deal with the claim for refund of input tax. Once the tax is paid under the Act, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of input tax. Either he may retain the difference of the amount collected and appropriate it and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X