Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (11) TMI 613

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is in the nature of subsidy which the appellant was receiving from the State Government in the form of VAT 37B Challans and not from the buyers of the appellant. The said remission was not only as good as cash but can also not be considered as an additional consideration. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Discharge of liability by way of VAT 37b Challans has already been held as legally sustainable methodology of discharging tax liability for subsequent period. Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation - demand could be confined only to the normal period of one year. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Application No. E/MISC/50731/2018 in Excise Appeal No. E/52168/2018 [D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mand in whole was confirmed vide Order No. 66 dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an Appeal. The same was also dismissed vide the Order under challenge. 3. We have heard Shri Dhruv Tiwari, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K. Mishra, Ld. DR for the Department. 4. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that the appellant was entitled to subsidy under RIPS in the nature of sales tax subsidy, the quantum whereof was based on the payments of Value Added Tax (VAT) by the appellant. After the quantum is determined, instead of outright payments through banking channels, the amount is paid to the appellant in the form of VAT 37B Challans under the Head of VAT Liability. It is th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y up to certain percentage of the VAT paid by the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the said subsidy is credited to the sales tax account of the appellant which he receives by way of VAT 37B Challans. It is also an apparently admitted fact that the appellant was paying total VAT charged at applicable rates on sale of goods to the State Exchequer and was filing the VAT returns. The VAT 37B Challans, the appellant was utilising to discharge the output VAT liability for the subsequent period. The Department has treated the said discharge of VAT liability vide the said VAT Challans as retention of sales tax by the appellant holding same, while levying/ confirming the impugned demand to have been included in the transaction value. The autho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he present case, the remission is in the nature of subsidy which the appellant was receiving from the State Government in the form of VAT 37B Challans and not from the buyers of the appellant. The said remission was not only as good as cash but can also not be considered as an additional consideration. The definition of transaction value under Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act becomes relevant at this stage which reads as follows:- Transaction value means the price actually paid or payable for the goods, when sold and includes in addition to the amount charged as price, any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to, or on behalf of, the assessee, by reason of, or in connection with the sale, whether payable at the time of the sale .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ra) but we are of the opinion that the facts of present case are absolutely different from the said case in the terms that the Hon ble Apex Court in the said case was dealing with sales tax incentive scheme. But in the present case, the issue is with respect to the grant of sales tax subsidy. In Super Synotex (supra) case, the assesse was retaining 75% of the sales tax collected from the customers whereas in the present case, the appellant had paid the entire amount of sales tax collected from the customers, with the Sales Tax Department without retaining even a meagre portion thereof. Hence, the benefit granted by RIPS to the appellant herein is not in the nature of exemption or incentive from payment of sales tax but is a remission where .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates