9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court passed in Input Tax Credit under Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, 2003. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. decided on 10.01.2018, in which, this Court held as under:- 29. Thus the claim of credit of input tax is indefeasible as was the case of CENVAT under Excise law and such credit of ITC under VAT law which is equivalent to tax paid in the chain of sales of the same goods, cannot be denied on the anvil of machinery provisions or even provisions relating to time frame which is law of limitation only bars the remedy rather than negativing the substantive claims under the taxing statutes. 30. Both the questions framed above are therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that as it may. Since that amendment is neither applicable to the facts of the present case nor any of the sides has called the same in question, this Court need not make any further analysis of these amendments. 32. This Court is, therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned assessment orders/re-assessment orders passed by the Respondent - Assessing Authorities to this extent of denying the claim of ITC to the petitioners assessees are illegal and unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 33. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matters would stand restored to the file of the Respondent Assessing Authorities to pass fresh orders in accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s against the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as the concerned Authorities of the Respondent Department. 35. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions are allowed. All the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Authorities are set aside and the matters are restored to file of the respective Assessing Authorities, for passing fresh orders in accordance with law, as interpreted above. No costs". 3. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the Regular Appeal under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003, against these reassessment orders are pending, but the delay in filing the appeals has not been condoned by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, the Appeals have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
