TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nput-tax credit, being the tax paid by him to his seller, which his seller would be liable to pay to the Government. The clause , does not indicate waiver of the amount paid as input-tax credit, as agreed by the Board. The Board had specifically made a condition that the tax payable to the Government would be paid by the Board itself and not paid to the petitioner herein. This was to ensure that the tax component would definitely go to the Government. VAT as applicable under the KVAT Act, being the net tax after input tax credit, that alone would be the liability of the petitioner to the Government, which is paid by the Board. Otherwise, if the amounts already paid by the petitioner to his seller is also paid to the Government, then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction of ₹ 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 series. The rejection is based on paragraph 2 of annexure II, terms and conditions. Though the taxes and dues were to be admitted at actuals, on production of documentary evidence, it contained a rider contends the Board insofar as enabling the petitioner to only claim for the tax for the value addition at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 enables him to seek for input-tax credit with respect to the value addition at the hands of the petitioner, is the argument. 5. A reading of the specific clause relied on by the Board would indicate that it is otherwise. The entire tax as per the actuals on the basis of the invoice, is the liability o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire 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. The Board had specifically made a condition that the tax payable to the Government would be paid by the Board itself and not paid to the petitioner herein. This was to ensure that the tax component would definitely go to the Government. The highlighted portion in the extracted clause refers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
