TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Section 19(11) ITC deadline upheld; strict time limit valid, ITC a concession, not a taxpayer right</h1> HC upheld the constitutional validity of Section 19(11) of the TN VAT Act, rejecting challenges under Articles 265 and 360A and allegations of ... Constitutionality of Section 19(11) - Whether Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act was violative of Article 265 and 360A of the Constitution of India and was liable to be struck down – Whether Section 19(11) was to be struck down on the ground that Section 19(11) was inconsistent with the Charging Section 3(2) and whether Section 19(11) was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act like Sections 21, 22, 27 and 29 of TN VAT Act – Held that:- After An analysis of various provisions of TN VAT Act and Rules thereon the assessment or revision of assessment made under Sections 22, 24, 27, 28 or 29 of the Act, Section 19(11) does not operate as an embargo for claiming Input Tax Credit - The availment of Input Tax Credit was creature of Statute - The concession of Input Tax Credit was granted by the State Government so that the beneficiaries of the concession were not required to pay the tax or duty which they were otherwise liable to pay under TN VAT Act - Section 19(11) TN VAT Act was enacted because Legislature consciously wanted to set up a time frame for availment of Input Tax Credit before the end of the financial year or ninety days from the date of purchase, whichever is later - Section 19(11) being part of Section 19, to avail Input Tax Credit, the conditions thereon were to be strictly complied with. The intention of the Legislature was to restrict the benefit of 'Input Tax Credit' within a particular time-frame - Consequence of non-compliance was very much available in Section 19(11) dealing with non-entitlement of 'Input Tax Credit” - challenging the assessment order/show cause notices denying the credit taken in the revised returns involving Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act were not maintainable. Section 19(11) – Directory of mandatory - Whether Section 19(11) was only directory and not mandatory – Held that:- Value Added Tax structure had the ultimate goal of augmenting the revenue by making the procedure simple and more transparent. Legislature in its wisdom mandated time frame for availment of Input Tax Credit accrued on purchases before the end of the financial year or ninety days from the date of purchase whichever is later. Section 19(11), being mandatory, the time-frame stipulated for Input Tax Credit is to be strictly construed. Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act cannot be struck down as being either unreasonable or discriminatory - We do not find any merit in the challenge to the provision of Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act. Section 19(11) specifically used the word 'shall' as regards compliance with the time-frame for claiming Input Tax Credit accumulated on purchases either before or end of the financial year or before ninety days after the purchase whichever is later - in order to verify the entries and to prevent any tax avoidance or evasion, time frame was stipulated in Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act to claim Input Tax Credit - The use of the word 'shall' is ordinarily indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision. Section 19(11) was mandatory and its contravention will result in forfeiture of the concession of availments of Input Tax Credit -M/s.Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing and Oil Industries vs. the State of Maharastra and Ors. [2012 (5) TMI 152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Provision for availing concession was to be strictly construed – and COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MADRAS Versus HOME ASHOK LEYLAND LTD [2007 (3) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Only in case of any of failure or omission to claim Input Tax Credit, in Section 19(11), a time frame had been fixed to claim Input Tax Credit before the end of the financial year or ninety days from the date of purchase, whichever is later. All the writ petitions were dismissed holding that Section 19(11) was a valid piece of legislation, cannot be struck down as being either unreasonable or discriminatory and violative of Article 265 and 360A of the Constitution of India – The Legislature consciously enacted Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act with avowed object of incorporating the time frame for availing Input Tax Credit before the end of financial year or ninety days from the date of purchase whichever is later - The provision was for safeguarding the interest of the revenue and to prevent the cascading effect of tax burden on the ultimate consumer. Issues: (i) Whether Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is violative of constitutional provisions and liable to be struck down; (ii) Whether Section 19(11) is inconsistent with the charging provision (Section 3(2)) or the scheme of the Act (including Sections 21, 22, 27, 29) and thereby invalid; (iii) Whether Section 19(11) is directory or mandatory.Issue (i): Whether Section 19(11) is constitutionally invalid and liable to be struck down.Analysis: The Court examined the legislative scheme of VAT, the nature of Input Tax Credit as a statutory concession, and the objective of Section 19(11) in prescribing a time-frame to prevent misuse and enable verification. The Court applied principles of constitutional review of fiscal legislation, including presumption of constitutionality and deference to legislative policy in economic matters.Conclusion: Section 19(11) is valid and not violative of the Constitution; the challenge on constitutional grounds is dismissed (decision in favour of the Revenue).Issue (ii): Whether Section 19(11) is inconsistent with Section 3(2)/3(3) or the scheme of the Act.Analysis: The Court analysed Section 3(2) (charging provision) and Section 3(3) and concluded that Input Tax Credit is a benefit conferred by statute subject to conditions and the manner prescribed in Section 19. The Court reviewed related assessment and procedural provisions (including Rule 7 and Rule 8) and held that Section 19(11) operates as a prescribed pre-condition and does not frustrate assessment or revision provisions; it in fact complements the self-assessment and verification scheme.Conclusion: Section 19(11) is not inconsistent with the charging provision or the scheme of the Act; the challenge based on inconsistency is rejected (decision in favour of the Revenue).Issue (iii): Whether Section 19(11) is directory or mandatory.Analysis: Applying statutory interpretation principles, the Court considered the language, purpose, design, and consequences of Section 19(11), the use of the word 'shall', and the legislative intent to prescribe a time-frame for claiming Input Tax Credit to ensure verification and prevent evasion. The Court distinguished procedural provisions previously held directory and held that Section 19(11) is a substantive pre-condition for the concession.Conclusion: Section 19(11) is mandatory; non-compliance results in forfeiture of the entitlement to Input Tax Credit (decision against the assessee/petitioners).Final Conclusion: The writ petitions are dismissed; Section 19(11) is upheld as constitutionally valid, consistent with the statute's scheme, and mandatory in nature. Petitioners challenging related assessment orders/show cause notices have no independent basis in view of this conclusion, and may pursue statutory remedies as permitted by the Court.Ratio Decidendi: Input Tax Credit is a statutory concession available only in the manner prescribed; Section 19(11) constitutes a mandatory pre-condition prescribing a reasonable time-frame for claiming such credit and is constitutionally and statutorily valid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
