Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Anantha Refinery Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) -2, Davanagere and Others

2016 (4) TMI 136 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Claim of full input tax rebate - Engaged in the manufacture and sale of sunflower oil, groundnut oil and soya oil - Returns of turnover in Form VAT 100 for the tax periods April 2008 to March 2009 were filed compiled on the basis of books of account and the tax was paid as admitted therein - Petitioner claimed partial input rebate in terms of section 17 of the KVAT Act in respect of sunflower cake, groundnut cake and soya seeds used as input in the extraction of oil on the understanding of the l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation, when there is no dispute that they were entitled to full tax rebate by virtue of the decision in M.K.Agro Tech Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka [2015 (1) TMI 854 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Now, it would be a formality for the respondent to pass a rectification order and grant full tax rebate to the petitioner. - Decided in favour of petitioner - WRIT PETITION Nos.49867-49878 OF 2015 (T-RES) - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - MR. ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. For The Petitioner : Shri G. Sarangan, Senior Adv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er oil, groundnut oil and soya oil, by employing solvent extraction process out of sunflower cake, groundnut cake and soya seeds. While oil is liable to tax and the by-product de-oiled cake is exempted from tax under entry Serial No.5(ii) of the First Schedule to the KVAT Act. The petitioner claims that returns of turnover in Form VAT 100 for the tax periods April 2008 to March 2009 were filed compiled on the basis of books of account and the tax was paid as admitted therein. In the said returns .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t orders under section 39(1) of the KVAT Act levying tax, penalty and interest. In doing so, the prescribed authority had allowed the partial input rebate as per Section 17 of the KVAT Act, on the value of inputs namely, sunflower cake, groundnut cake and soya seeds purchased on payment of value added tax (VAT) and used in the extraction of oil on the understanding of law that the petitioner is not eligible for full input tax rebate, since it manufactured and sold taxable goods, namely, oil and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

isions of Section 17 of the KVAT Act relating to partial rebate. This was the declaratory of the law and according to the petitioner, would always have been applicable to all assessments made prior to and after the date of the said judgment. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 69(1) relating to the tax period April 2008 to March 2009 before the first respondent, for rectification of the re-assessment orders and to grant full input tax rebate on the value of VAT. That .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the date of judgment and there can be no second opinion, though the revenue has sought to challenge the same before the Apex Court and is pending consideration. 5. The learned Government Advocate, while justifying the order, would submit that the question of rectification would not arise and it is a misconception on the part of the petitioner that they could file such a rectification application within a period of five years. Since the statute was clear even as on the date the claim was made a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

part of the revenue to contend that such a claim should have been made in the first instance and that the petitioner is precluded from raising such a claim as on date, as it was a mutually understood position of law which prevented the assessees from raising such claim. For otherwise, if such a claim had been made, it was quite possible that they would have been penalized for making such a claim and it is only on the legal position being settled by a decision of a division bench of this court th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version