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

M/s. STOVEKRAFT PVT. LTD. Versus THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

2016 (6) TMI 987 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Restriction in input tax credit - deduction of input tax in excess of 2% of the tax - KAT - returns were to be discarded and the re-assessment was to be undertaken - Held that:- It is hardly required to be stated that even if the return of the assessee is discarded resulting in a process of re-assessment, the Assessing Officer further needs to examine the permissibility of the input credit and if permitted, then to what extent. While considering the said aspects, the Assessing Officer had to als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

> For the Respondent: None JAYANT PATEL J., J U D G M E N T Admit. 2. Mr.Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent waives notice of admission . 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, appeals are finally heard. 4. The present appeals are directed against order dated 30/11/2015, passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under revisional jurisdiction, whereby the order pas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d the revised order of assessment. On 1/8/2011, the appellant preferred an application for rectification of mistake, requesting to allow the input tax credit at 3% as against 4%. The application was rejected vide order dated 9/8/2011. The appellant carried he matter in appeal before the first appellate authority and the said authority, vide order dated 29/3/2012, all owed the appeal and accordingly, deduction of input tax in excess of 2% of the tax for the period from April 2 009 to June 2009, w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ring for the respondent. 8. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the reasons are recorded to deal with the contention that whether input tax credit should be made permissible to the extent of 2% or 4% even if the returns were to be discarded and the re-assessment was to be undertaken. It was also submitted that again st the same assessee, the very revisional authority had passed orders in respect of each assessment period and the y were carried before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d order contended that this is not a matter on par with the earlier matters considered by this court in STA.Nos.6/2016 and allied matters, wherein no reason whatsoever were recorded by the revisional authority, but in the present case, reasons are recorded at paragraph No.7 of the impugned order. He submitted that the ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is erroneous. 10. However, when it was put to Mr.Vedamurthy as to whether the revisional authority has recorde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, we may also record that in the impugned order, at paragraph No.5, the revisional authority has reproduced the contents of the reply filed on behalf of the assessee and in the said reproduction of the reply at paragraph Nos.20 to 22, it is mentioned as under: 20. Further we submit that except Commissioner, other departmental authorities has no power to change the application of the formula, as prescribed under sub-rule (5) rule 131 of the KVAT Rules, 2005, which is reproduced as und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

drop the proceedings. 22. In addition to the above we further submit that, as per section 11(a)(5) read with Section 14 of the Act, input tax should be restricted to that extent of 2% towards inputs which are attributable to goods stock transferred outside the State. If such inputs are not ascertainable on account of common use of inputs for both sales of taxable goods and goods stock transferred to outside the State, rule 131 provides for apportionment of such inputs towards taxabl .....

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
 


Share:            

|| 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