GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 904 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2016 (6) TMI 904 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - [2016] 90 VST 220 (Kar) - Levy of penalty - claim of input tax credit applying the wrong formula - whether the act of the petitioner would fall in the category of ‘unintentional act or not’ - Section 72 of the KVAT Act - purchases of petroleum products including furnace oil - Held that:- first appellate authority in the present matter, has found that the action was not unintentional and therefore, the benefit of circular would not be available to the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted:- 8-3-2016 - MR.JAYANT PATEL AND MRS.B.V.NAGARATHNA JJ. For the Petitioner: Sri. Thirumalesh, advocate For the Respondent: Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, GP ORDER The petitioner-assessee has preferred the present petitions by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to applicability .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

08 in re-assessment order passed under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal was right in not following the order passed by another Bench of the Tribunal on the same issue and relied upon on behalf of the petitioner? 2. We have heard Mr.Thirumalesh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. We may record that in order to find out as to whether the act of the petitioner would fall in the cat .....

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 month of Appeal and subsequently in all the tax periods continuously. The factors which could cause confusion in using the formula prescribed under Rule 131 do not exist in these appeals. The appellant has not demonstrated the existence of any such factors or confusions in the use of the said formula. The Prescribed Authority clearly states that the Appellant has claimed input tax credit at 12.5% in the case of furnace oil or other petroleum products used for manufacture of finishe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the requirements prescribed in Section 31 of the Act is contrary to facts. The Prescribed Authority also notes that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance), who has inspected the books of accounts of the Appellant on 3 different dates has found that the dealer has not applied the restrictions of Section 11(a)(5) and Section 11(a)(6) while claiming the input tax credit with respect to purchases utilized for stock transfers outside the State and on purchases of petroleum product .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

il 2006, May 2006, January 2007, March 2007 and December 2007, the Prescribed Authority has allowed excess tax credit higher than that claimed in the returns. If this is true, the Prescribed Authority has exceeded his jurisdiction as under Section 39(1) he is vested with powers of re- assessment if it is found that, for any tax period, tax admitted in the return is less than the correct tax liability and not otherwise. This is an issue which is not before us and the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 69(1) dated 24-2-2011. In this order the net tax payable is determined at ₹ 99,13,78,006/- compared to the tax admitted and paid along with the returns of ₹ 99,05,74,089/- leaving a difference tax payable of ₹ 8,03,917/- under the CST Act and refundable amount of ₹ 19,88,44,369/- has arisen because the Appellant had paid a tax of ₹ 20.00 crores pursuant to the orders under Section 39(1) dated 30-6-2010, that the said re-assessment order was rectified vide o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed either or they occur much after the purchase of inputs. In the case of the Appellant, the transactions necessitating partial rebating have occurred earlier, have been occurring in every tax period of purchase of inputs and disposal of outputs and therefore, this is not an un-intentional case as specified in the Circular. In Para (14) of the Circular, it is clearly stated that wherever it is proved that reversal of input tax deducted in excess of what is allowed under the provision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 131. As stated in the Circular, excess claims of tax credits are a possibility when a cycle of transaction is less than 6 months or spread over in two to three months of one financial year and two or three months in another financial year. The Appellant does not categorically state as to what was his difficulty or confusion in using the formula prescribed under Rule 131. Rather, it is the case of the Appellant that in every case of partial rebating, the benefit of Para .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntention are irrelevant to the facts of these Appeals. The First Appellate Authority has considered the contentions of the Appellant and has come to the categorical finding that the benefit of the Circular is not available to the Appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders with respect to this issue. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 4. The aforesaid shows that the first appellate Authority after examining the contentions of the petitioner herein .....

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, for the purpose of a question of fact is the ultimate fact finding authority. This Court may interfere with such finding of fact if it is a mixed question of law and fact or the view taken by the Tribunal on the basis of the facts available on record is an impossible view and not the possible view. If it is a possible view, this Court may not sit in an appeal over such finding of fact. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner attempted to contend that 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

become a subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the present facts. He also contended that the petitioner, during the course of hearing, did rely upon the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 28.11.2013 in case of Sri Srinivas, Partner, M/s.Shivaganga Food Oil Extractions Vs. State of Karnataka in STA Nos.193 to 221/2012. But the Tribunal without dealing with the said aspects in detail has just brushed aside the s aid decision which is not permissible. He submitted that if 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

appellate authority found that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee and inspite of the same, the benefit of circular was not given fully. Hence, the Tribunal in the said case had taken the view that once it was found that there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner, it was required for extending the benefit and accordingly the order of penalty and interest was set aside by the Tribunal. Such is not the fact situation in the present case, inasmuch as 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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