9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2006, the date of registration. The question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal is re-framed as follows:- "Whether the Tribunal was justified in denying the benefit of the first proviso to Section 16(2) for claiming input tax credit and thus rejecting the claim of input tax credit from the date of commencement of business; and ought not the Tribunal have granted the benefit as held in the binding precedent of Sales Tax Officer v. Kerala Curry House [2010(3) KLT 26(SN)]." 2. On facts, suffice it to notice that the petitioner/assessee, as submitted by its learned counsel, filed an application for registration on 28.2.2006 and the registration certificate showed the date of registration as 8.2.2006. On a specific query raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The compelling argument raised is on the basis of the substitution made by the Kerala Finance Act, 2009 to the proviso to Section 16(2) of the Act, which reads as follows:- "Provided that registration shall be deemed to have been granted with effect from the date of commencement of business irrespective of the date of application, for the purpose of.- (a) paying tax under sub-section (5) of section 6, subject to eligibility, and; (b) opting for payment of tax under section 8 for the relevant years subject to eligibility: Provided further that new dealers applying for registration and existing dealers having registration may avail this benefit subject to the condition that they shall pay tax under the respective provisions alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the aforecited decision had categorically found that the deemed retrospective effect of registration granted from the date of commencement of business would only be for availing the benefit of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 16(2). Clauses (a) and (b) are confined to payment of tax under Section 6(5) and opting for payment of tax under Section 8. This would not take in the input tax credit as claimed by the petitioner. 8. We find that a learned Single Judge in K.K.Abraham & Company considered the specific issue of a dealer, a firm, registered under the KVAT Act, on reconstitution claiming input tax credit under the KVAT Act. Section 11 of the KVAT Act was extracted and noticed to find that input tax credit is only availab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner, who claims the benefit of input-tax credit without being a registered dealer as on March 31, 2005." 9. We approve the finding of the learned Single Judge, which is squarely applicable here. A reading of Section 11 would indicate that only a registered dealer would have the benefit of input tax credit. The benefit conferred under the proviso to Section 16(2) as substituted in the statute book in 2009 only grants benefit for payment of tax under Section 6(5) and exercising an option for payment of tax under Section 8. The benefit of input tax credit does not flow necessarily from the proviso as substituted in 2009. In such circumstances, we approve the judgment of the learned Single Judge in K.K. Abraham & Co. and reject the revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
