Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Ultra Tech Cement Limited Versus State of Karnataka

2016 (6) TMI 64 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the orders passed by the authorities, disallowing the input tax credit on capital goods during the tax periods 2006-07 for the purchase of capital goods made in the tax periods 2005-06 - Forms VAT 170 were filed on 19.04.2006 and 19.05.2006, the assessee purchased the capital goods during September 2005 to December 2005 and revised returns were filed during the year 2005-06 claiming input tax credit on these capital goods. - Held that:- it is h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Tribunal. - Decided against the assessee - STRP No. 1501 /2013 - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - Ashok B. Hinchigeri And S. Sujatha, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri. L. B. Bannikoppa, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri. Syed Habeeb, Govt. Advocate ORDER This revision petition is filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the 'Act' for short) challenging the judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, Gulbarga Camp in STA No.963/2011 as regards disallo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oceedings under Section 39(1) of the Act disallowing input tax credit on the capital goods claimed at ₹ 18,06,533/-. The petitioner filed the application under Section 69(1) of the Act seeking rectification of the order of re- assessment passed under Section 39(1) of the Act. The assessing authority rejected the rectification application as no sufficient grounds were established. Being aggrieved by the said order and reassessment order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the First Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aw which falls for our consideration is "Whether the Tribunal is justified in confirming the orders passed by the authorities, disallowing the input tax credit on capital goods at ₹ 18,06,533/- during the tax periods 2006-07 for the purchase of capital goods made in the tax periods 2005-06?" 5. The learned counsel Sri Bannikoppa, appearing for the assessee would contend that the petitioner had filed Form 170 before the authorities on 19.04.2006 declaring the purchase of capital g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dvocate Sri Syed Habeeb appearing for the revenue justifying the order passed by the Tribunal contends that Form VAT 170 filed by the assessee discloses the purchase of goods in the year 2005-06, the assessments were concluded for the year 2005-06 rejecting the input tax credit against which the assessee had preferred appeal before the First Appellate authority. The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal confirming the order of appellate authority disallowing the input tax credit on capit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. The undisputed facts are that Forms VAT 170 were filed by the assessee on 19.04.2006 and 19.05.2006, the assessee had purchased the capital goods during September 2005 to December 2005, the revised returns were filed during the year 2005-06 claiming input tax credit on these capital goods. It is the case of the assessee that the authorities as well as the Tribunal without appreciating these vital aspects rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had not filed Form VAT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f India and in the case of any other dealer in respect of the purchase of capital goods wholly or partly for use in the business of taxable goods. 2. Deduction of input tax under this Section shall be allowed only after commencement of commercial production, or sale of taxable goods or sale of any goods in the course of export out of the territory of the Indian by the registered dealer (x x x x x). Rule 133 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules provides for deduction of input tax under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aimed by the dealer in his return for the month of April, 2006. (VAT 175 is deleted from the statute book w.e.f.1.4.2006) 9. A bare reading of these provisions particularly, the proviso appended to Rule 133(e) would make it clear that any balance of deduction of input tax in respect of capital goods purchased prior to the 1st day of April 2006 for which input tax rebate has already been granted in Form VAT 175 shall be claimed by the dealer in return for the month of April 2006. This is not the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version