9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in STA No. 74/2018 and STA No. 75/2018. 2. By virtue of the order passed in the above mentioned STAs, the tribunal has allowed the appeals, set aside the orders passed by the first appellate authority and the assessing authority while remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to pass fresh orders by accepting the Net Input Tax Credit declared by the appellant at Rs. 7,20,92,631-00 in the monthly return turn over in Form VAT-100 for the months of July to October 2014. Direction was passed remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to allow Input Tax Credit of the invoices of the previous months claimed in subsequent months, in terms of the decision reported in 2018 (90) KGST.L.J 2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same is now considered by the order of the Division Bench in STRP No. 234/2016 in the case of M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Limited Vs. The State of Karnataka, wherein the order of the learned Single Judge in Kirloskar Electric Co., Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka has been upheld and accordingly submits in the light of the legal position emanating from the order passed in STRP No. 234/2016 holding that, there is no time limit prescribed under Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act for availing Input Tax Credit, the order of the tribunal does not call for interference and no question of law arises and accordingly, the revision petition is to be dismissed summarily. 7. Learned AGA appearing for the State would submit that, the matter requires considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 35 of the same Act, 2003? 11. Both the said questions have been answered by the learned Single Judge holding that, the right under Section 10 (3) is a indefeasible right and in the absence of any time limit prescribed under Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act, to claim Input Tax Credit, the order of tribunal did not call for interference. 12. The said order of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of the writ appeal, wherein in W.A. No. 101194/2016 came to be disposed of taking note of the order of the Division Bench in STRP No. 234/2016 in the case of M/s. BEML Vs. State of Karnataka. 13. It is necessary to notice the observations made in STRP No. 234/2016 in the case of M/s BEML Vs. State of Karnataka. The Division Bench af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 35 (4) would become a rule, rather than an exception... ...Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act, prior to its amendment vide the Karnataka Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act, 2015, shall be read down to enable the petitioners to calculate the net tax liability by deducting the input tax paid on its purchases from its output tax liability, irrespective of the month in which the selling dealer raises invoices. (Emphasis supplied) 25. In Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, the facts are, the assessees claimed Input Tax Credit against the output tax liability in respect of the sales made by it in the year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer denied the claim on the ground that the input tax credit is deductible only in that 'Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in which the invoice issued; * that in the State of Karnataka v. M/s. Centum Industries and M/s Infinite Builders and Developer, Bangalore V. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, this Court has clarified that the words "in that period" under Section 10 (3) provides the period in which input is paid and output tax is payable and the same has be accounted in accordance with the provisions of the Act; * the Hon'ble Single Judge has erred holding that the un-amended Section 10 (3) did not prescribe any time limit for availing input tax credit; * Section 10 (3) read prior to April 01, 2015, mandatorily requires dealers to avail input tax credit only in the month in which the invoice is issued, and it was only after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no co-relation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product that is manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that is becomes available." (Emphasis Supplied) 30. It is further held that: 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 relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
