M/S Century N F Casting, Faridabad vs. State Of Haryana And Others
Held
The Court noted that the learned counsel for both parties were in agreement that an identical issue had been considered by this Court in VATAP No.71 of 2012, M/s Enkay (India) Rubber Company Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. State of Haryana, decided on May 23, 2018. In that case, the Tribunal had not considered the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana VAT Act. The Court, in the cited case, had set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back for fresh decision. Following this precedent and the consensus between the parties, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The specific findings on the entitlement to input tax credit or compliance with Section 8 were not made by the High Court, as the matter was remanded.
Facts
The appellant, M/s Century N F Casting, Faridabad, is challenging orders dated February 14, 2013, August 27, 2014, and November 2, 2017, passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal. The dispute pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. The core of the matter involves the appellant's entitlement to input tax credit on tax paid for the purchase of a DEPB license. This license was allegedly used for importing raw material, which in turn was utilized in the manufacture of goods for sale. The appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to consider the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana VAT Act in its decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the assessee appellant is entitled to input tax credit on tax paid on the purchase of a DEPB license, which was used in the import of raw material that was subsequently used in the manufacture of goods for sale, under the Haryana VAT Act. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Haryana VAT Act have been complied with by the authorities. Contentions: Petitioner/Appellant: Argues that the input tax credit on the DEPB license should be allowed as it was used for importing raw materials for manufacturing. Relies on the contention that the Tribunal failed to consider Section 8 of the Haryana VAT Act. Revenue/State: The judgment records no specific arguments for the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 8
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.10.2018 M/s Century N F Casting, Faridabad
...... Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others
....... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL J. The assessee has filed the present appeal raising following substantial questions of law arising out of order dated 14.02.2013, 27.08.2014 and 02.11.2017 passed by the Haryana Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No.STA-1079/2014-15 titled as “M/s Century N F Casting vs. State of Haryana” for the assessment year 2009-10:- “i) Whether the assessee appellant is not entitled to input tax credit on tax paid on purchase of DEPB license which were used in import of raw material which was used in the manufacture of goods for sale. RITTU 2018.10.12 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document -2- ii) Whether the provisions of Section 8 have not been complied with
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.