Input-tax credit restrictions must stay within the statutory genus; blanket denial on coal and furnace oil was invalid.

The residual delegated power under section 20(8)(m) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 must be read in the same genus as the specific exclusions already listed for input-tax credit. A blanket notification denying credit on coal and furnace oil, despite those goods being used as inputs or consumables in manufacture, exceeded that scope and was invalid to that extent. However, the statutory delegation itself was not unconstitutional: the scheme of section 20 supplied sufficient guidance and limits, so the challenge for excessive delegation failed. The notification was struck down only insofar as it denied input-tax credit on coal and furnace oil.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clause (m) of sub-section (8) of section 20 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 authorises the State Government to notify a blanket denial of input-tax credit in respect of coal and furnace oil. (ii) Whether section 20(8)(m) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is unconstitutional for excessive delegation of legislative power.

Issue (i): Whether clause (m) of sub-section (8) of section 20 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 authorises the State Government to notify a blanket denial of input-tax credit in respect of coal and furnace oil.

Analysis: The scheme of section 20 permits input-tax credit on purchases of goods intended for use as inputs or consumables in manufacture, subject to the restrictions specifically created by sub-sections (4) and (8). Clauses (a) to (l) of sub-section (8) enumerate specific situations where credit is unavailable, and clause (m) operates in the same statutory setting. Applying ejusdem generis, the residual power under clause (m) must be confined to cases of the same class as the expressly listed disqualifying situations. A notification that broadly singles out coal and furnace oil for denial of credit, although those goods are inputs or consumables used in manufacture, goes beyond the permissible scope of clause (m) and is inconsistent with the legislative mandate governing input-tax credit.

Conclusion: The notification was invalid to the extent it denied input-tax credit on coal and furnace oil, and the challenge succeeded on this issue in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether section 20(8)(m) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is unconstitutional for excessive delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: The parent provision and the surrounding statutory scheme supply the guiding framework and limits for the exercise of the delegated power. The power to notify further disqualifying cases is not uncanalised or unguided, because it operates within the policy and structure already laid down by section 20 as a whole.

Conclusion: Section 20(8)(m) was upheld and the constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded only to the extent of striking down the notification insofar as it denied input-tax credit on coal and furnace oil, while the statutory delegation itself was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A residuary delegated power to notify further disqualifying cases for input-tax credit must be construed in the same genus as the specific statutory exclusions already enumerated and cannot be used to impose a blanket denial inconsistent with the scheme of the Act.

---