BharatTaxGST

M/S. R.B. Seth Shree Ram Narasingdas vs. The State Of Karnataka

Original PDF →
WP/112380/2017HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC02000054201708 February 2024Bench: HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800 WP No. 112380 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 112380 OF 2017 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. R.B. SETH SHREE RAM NARASINGDAS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.AJAY SARAF, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, D.NO.1499/2, BOX NO.38, BELLARY ROAD, KARIGANUR, HOSAPETE-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT)-1, CHITWADGI, ISR ROAD, HUDA COMPLEX, HOSAPETE-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP.) SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800 WP No. 112380 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT, PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT VIDE THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 DOES NOT RESTRICT THE PETITIONER TO CLAIM INPUT TAX CREDIT IN THE MONTH OF PURCHASE EFFECTED BY ACCOUNTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE PURCHASE INVOICES WERE ISSUED BY THE SELLING DEALERS. II) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT, AFTER ITS AMENDMENT VIDE THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015, IS RETROSPECTIVELY OPERATIVE WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2005. III) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT, EVEN AFTER THE INSERTION OF THE PROVISON BY KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S.SONAL APPAREL THE BENEFIT OF CLAIMING INPUT TAX REBATE IS AVAILABLE IN TH MONTH OF PURCHASE EFFECTED BY ACCOUNTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MONTH IN WHICH PURCHASE INVOICES WERE ISSUED BY THE SELLING DEALERS. IV) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT

ORDER IN NO.CTO(A)/1/HPT/2017-18 DATED:14.11.2017 PASSED BY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT)- 1 HOSPET, THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN, UNDER SECTIONS 39(1), 72(2) AND 36 OF KVAT ACT,2003 FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2012-13 AND NOTICE OF DEMAND IN FORM VAT 180 ISSUED IN PURSUANCE THEREOF IN SO FAR AS DISALLOWING INPUT TAX CREDIT CLAIMED AS PER SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT IN THE MONTH OF ACCOUNTING THE PURCHASE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ANNEXURE-C, AND ETC.,.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800 ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner was denied input tax credit for having filed the returns belatedly i.e., after six months. Therefore, this petition to declare that the provisions of section 10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act prior to its amendment does not restrict the petitioner to claim input tax credit in the month of purchase effected by accounting in the books of accounts irrespective of the month, in which the purchase invoices were issued by the selling dealers.

3.

The issue involved in this petition was examined by the Division Bench of this Court in STRP No.234/2016, wherein at para 32 it is held as follows:

“32. The main issue is whether the assessees who have filed the returns belatedly are entitled for input credit or not. A plain reading of provision of Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, 2003, shows that no time limit or restriction is prescribed for availing the input tax credit. In Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. (stated supra), the Apex court has held that credit is indefeasible. The Modvat credit is similar to the Input Tax Credit in this case. NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800 Therefore, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge that the Input Tax Credit cannot be denied on the anvil of the machinery provisions or the provisions relating to the time frame. Hence, in our considered view, the assesses shall be eligible to avail the input tax credit as and when the tax is paid by them, without any limitation of time.”

4.

What emerges from the ratio enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court is that the assesses are eligible to avail the input tax credit as and when the tax is paid by them without any limitation of time. Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed off in light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.

5.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the 3rd respondent at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

6.

It is held that the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit of input tax credit if tax is already paid. JUDGE MRK Ct:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.