Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 788 - KERALA HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 788 - KERALA HIGH COURT - TMI - Claiming special rebate in terms of Section 12(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 - The total output tax payable by the petitioner during the relevant years was more than the special rebate claimed for the purchase turnover as per Section 6(2). However, while making the assessment, the assessing officer had only given a special rebate at 4% of the purchase turnover for the year 2011-12 and 5% for the year 2012-13. This according to the petitioner is on a wrong .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ddition or deletion. Each word in the proviso has to be given a meaning and while giving such an interpretation, the only possible view that could be taken is with reference to the amount of special rebate that the dealer claims with reference to the output tax payable and not with reference to the rate of tax. - The assessing authorities were not justified in limiting the rebate to 4% and 5% as the case may be. The petitioner was entitled for rebate for the entire amount paid in terms of Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dent challenges Exts.P5 and P6 assessment orders for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. The challenge is only with reference to the limited extent of claiming special rebate in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act. In the year 2011-12 the purchase turnover of the petitioner under Section 6(2) was 11,50,358/- and the tax on the said ₹ amount would come to ₹1,43,795/-. In respect the assessment year 2012-13 the purchase turnover is ₹18,67,305.16/- and the tax due computed at 13.5% is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lenges the vires of the statute viz., fourth proviso to Section 12(1) and alternatively contending that the method adopted by the assessing officer in giving rebate is absolutely wrong. Section 12(1)(a) and (b) reads as under : 12. Special rebating in certain cases.- (1) In calculating the net tax payable by a dealer for a return period, there shall be deducted from the tax payable for the return period, a sum equal to,- (a) the tax paid under sub-section (2) of section 6; and (b) the tax paid u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n respect of capital goods, the same shall be allowed over a period of three years and all the conditions and restrictions applicable to input tax credit under sub-section (2) of section 11 shall apply to the special rebate under this section also: Provided also that where the goods except plywood, packing cases, splints and veneers in respect of which tax is payable under sub-section (2) of section 6 is sold in the State or in the course of interstate trade or used in the course of manufacture .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he State or used in the manufacture of goods and the same are sent outside the State, otherwise than by way of sale in the course of interstate trade or export or where the sale in the course of inter-state trade is exempted from tax, the special rebate under this section shall be limited to the amount of such tax paid in excess of four per cent. Provided also that where the goods in respect of which tax under subsection (2) of section 6 or under section 3 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is always possible for the legislature to bring in such provisions to either grant the benefit or to restrict the benefit in certain situations and therefore, it cannot be stated that the statute is unconstitutional or irrational in any manner. As far as the challenge to the fourth proviso to Section 12 (1) of the Act is concerned, sufficient pleadings are not available in the writ petition to indicate that the challenge can be sustained. Challenge to the 4th proviso to Section 12(1) is, theref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der this section shall not exceed the output tax payable in respect of such goods or goods manufactured out of such goods. The officer had opined that since the rate of tax for output tax payable is 4% and 5% in the respective years of assessment, the rebate has to be limited to 4% and 5% during the aforesaid assessment years. The learned counsel for petitioner argues that the proviso contemplates special rebate up to the total output tax payable. 5. The learned Government Pleader, while support .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate allowable to a dealer. 6. But on a perusal of the statutory provision, I do not think that such a view is possible. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when Section 12(1) gives a benefit and the benefit is restricted by way of a proviso, the proviso has to be read as it is without any addition or deletion. Each word in the proviso has to be given a meaning and while giving such an interpretation, the only possible view that could be taken is with reference to 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