BharatTaxGST

Kirloskar Ferrous Industry Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/61043/2009HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC02003987200906 February 2024Bench: HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. N DINESH RAO, 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:2537 WP No. 61043 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 61043 OF 2009 (T-RES) BETWEEN: KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRY LIMITED FACTORY AT BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE (P.O), HITNAL-583 234 KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS ITS MANAGER (FINANCE), SRI. M.K.JAGADEESH KUMAR, AGED 44 S/O LATE M KRISHNAMURTHY RAO …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LOCAL VAT OFFICE KOPPAL 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VANIJYA THRIGE KARYALAYAI CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA R/B ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP) SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.02.07 21:18:00 -0800 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2537 WP No. 61043 of 2009 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF DECLARATION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DECLARING THE TIME LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 3(4) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURNS AS VOID AND HAS NO EFFECT SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. (II) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 31.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G. (III) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE REVISED RETURNS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE TAX PERIODS JANUARY 2008, FEBRUARY, 2008 AND MARCH 2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ANNEXURE-E AND ANNEXURE-F. (IV) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.5/2008-2009 DATED 07.07.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H TO THE EXTENT OF DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN THE REVISED RETURNS FILED WITH ADDITIONAL TAX LIABILITY AND THE REVISED RETURNS FILED WITH REDUCED TAX LIABILITY, SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2537 WP No. 61043 of 2009

ORDER

This petition is filed challenging the endorsement dated 31.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.1, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for availing input tax credit on the ground that returns were filed beyond six months.

2.

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. 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.” NC: 2024:KHC-D:2537 WP No. 61043 of 2009

3.

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. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 31.12.2008 issued by respondent No.1 at Annexure – G is hereby quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to accept the revised returns filed by the petitioner for the tax period January 2008, February 2008, and March 2008 at Annexures – D, E and F. JUDGE

RSH CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

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.