Input rebate depends on transaction substance and contemporaneous evidence, not delayed invoice date, with writ relief available on admitted facts.

Input rebate under Section 14 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was held to depend on the substance of the transaction and contemporaneous evidence of payment, delivery and removal of goods within the relevant period, not merely on the later date of invoice issuance. Rule 9 permits quantification by bill, invoice or cash memo, but does not make rebate contingent on a particular invoice form or timing. On admitted facts, the assessing authority's denial of rebate was found arbitrary and contrary to law, and the availability of an alternate appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the impugned action was legally unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether input rebate under Section 14 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 could be denied merely because the invoices were issued after the financial year, despite documentary material showing payment, delivery, and removal of goods within the relevant period; (ii) Whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternate statutory remedy of appeal was available.

Issue (i): Whether input rebate under Section 14 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002 could be denied merely because the invoices were issued after the financial year, despite documentary material showing payment, delivery, and removal of goods within the relevant period.

Analysis: The rebate claim was required to be tested on the basis of the actual transaction evidenced by the agreement, delivery challans, gate passes, and payment records, not by the date on which the invoice was later issued. Rule 9 of the M.P. Value Added Tax Rules permits the claim to be quantified on the basis of a bill, invoice, or cash memo, but does not require any particular pro forma or make the invoice date . The documents showed that the installments, tax component, dismantling, and lifting of scrap had taken place within the relevant financial year, so the mere later issuance of invoices did not justify denial of rebate.

Conclusion: The denial of input rebate was unsustainable and was held to be against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was not maintainable because an alternate statutory remedy of appeal was available.

Analysis: Although an appellate remedy existed under Section 46(1) of the M.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2002, the dispute turned on admitted facts and the legality of the assessing authority's action. Where the statutory order is found to be arbitrary or contrary to law on undisputed material, the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were quashed and the assessing authority was directed to grant the input rebate for the transaction that had occurred within the relevant assessment period.

Ratio Decidendi: For claiming input tax rebate, the decisive factor is the substance of the transaction and the contemporaneous evidence of payment and delivery within the relevant period, and not the later date of issuance of the invoice; an alternate statutory remedy will not preclude writ relief where the impugned action is contrary to law on admitted facts.

---