9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner entered into a supply contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board/first respondent. The petitioner supplied the entire materials as per the agreement. The total contract amount was Rs. 57,15,400. However, the petitioner was sanctioned with only Rs. 55,23,965. The petitioner contends that, the reduction of Rs. 1,91,435 is with respect to the tax, which he had paid on purchase from other dealers, which the petitioner is entitled to get input tax credit; as per the provisions of the KVAT Act. 2. The claim is not against the sales tax authorities nor is there any reduction of the input-tax credit, by such authorities. The Board refused to pay the tax paid by the petitioner to his sellers, which tax is evidenced at exhibit P3 serie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal tax payable thereon. Input-tax credit is only a measure by which the petitioner who is the intermediary dealer, is absolved from the liability to pay tax under the KVAT Act, twice, since that paid by the petitioner to his seller, would also be collected by the State from the seller. The concept of input tax requires no elaboration and the same is trite. 4. The learned standing counsel for the Board however, would contend that the terms of payment are regulated by a specific contract. The petitioner has specifically agreed to concede the amount of input-tax credit and not claim it from the Board. The specific terms of the contract interdicts the petitioner from recovering the tax, which is already paid by the petitioner and which enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the balance tax, i.e., the tax due on the value addition at the hands of the petitioner was remitted directly to the Government. The tax component paid by the petitioner, to his seller, which the petitioner could claim as input-tax, in his sales tax returns, was declined. 7. Even if the entire tax component was paid to the petitioner, the petitioner would have been liable only for payment of tax at four per cent. To the Government, on the value addition at his hands, since, the returns would have claimed the input-tax credit, being the tax paid by him to his seller, which his seller would be liable to pay to the Government. The extracted clause above, does not indicate waiver of the amount paid as input-tax credit, as agreed by the Board. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
