TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee had violated section 18(1) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 so as to deny input-tax credit; (ii) whether section 18(3A) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applied to the dispute for the period prior to 9 March 2011.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee had violated section 18(1) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 so as to deny input-tax credit.
Analysis: The finding recorded below was that the assessee had paid the requisite tax on the purchase price and had reduced the purchase by minimising the trade discount. On that basis, no violation of section 18(1) was established and the allowance of input-tax credit was sustained.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether section 18(3A) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 applied to the dispute for the period prior to 9 March 2011.
Analysis: The newly inserted provision was noted to have come into force only from 9 March 2011. The matter was required to be tested on the law prevailing before that date, and the earlier appellate order was found deficient for not examining the dispute in that light.
Conclusion: The provision was not applied so as to disturb the assessee's entitlement on the facts of this case.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the order sustaining input-tax credit in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A taxing provision introduced with effect from a later date cannot be applied to deny relief for a period governed by the earlier legal regime, and input-tax credit cannot be denied absent a proved violation of the substantive statutory condition.
TaxTMI 
