Input tax credit on packing materials in stock-transfer cases was denied under the VAT scheme, and the constitutional challenge failed.

Section 6(3)(d) of the Uttarakhand VAT Act was read to deny input tax credit on packing materials used in goods transferred outside the State by stock transfer, because the proviso extended limited relief only to raw materials and did not cover packing materials. Section 6(4)(a) was treated as a proportional credit provision for mixed use and not as a separate entitlement in stock-transfer cases. The 2008 circular could not override the clear statutory scheme, and the later 2013 circular was treated as consistent with it. The constitutional challenge under Articles 301 and 304 also failed because the provision did not discriminate against inter-State trade.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit was available on packing materials used in manufacturing goods that were transferred outside the State by stock transfer. (ii) Whether the 2008 circular bound the assessing authorities so as to preserve the claimed input tax credit for the relevant assessment years. (iii) Whether the statutory denial of input tax credit on packing materials in stock-transfer cases was violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit was available on packing materials used in manufacturing goods that were transferred outside the State by stock transfer.

Analysis: Section 6(3)(d) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 allowed input tax credit on raw materials, consumables, containers and packing materials only where the manufactured goods were for sale or resale within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. The proviso to that clause extended limited relief only for raw materials where the finished goods were dispatched outside the State otherwise than by sale, and it did not mention packing materials. Section 6(4)(a) was held to concern proportionate credit where goods were used for mixed sanctioned and non-sanctioned purposes, and it did not create a separate entitlement for stock-transfer cases. The exclusion in Section 6(8)(f) and Section 6(8)(g) supported that reading.

Conclusion: Input tax credit on packing materials used for goods stock transferred outside the State was not available.

Issue (ii): Whether the 2008 circular bound the assessing authorities so as to preserve the claimed input tax credit for the relevant assessment years.

Analysis: The 2008 circular was not read as clearly granting credit on packing materials for stock-transferred goods. Any stray sentence suggesting broader relief was held to be ambiguous and incapable of overriding the clear statutory scheme. The later 2013 circular was treated as clarificatory and consistent with the Act. A circular cannot control an interpretation that is contrary to the statute.

Conclusion: The 2008 circular did not entitle the assessee to input tax credit on packing materials for stock-transfer transactions.

Issue (iii): Whether the statutory denial of input tax credit on packing materials in stock-transfer cases was violative of Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The constitutional freedom of trade and commerce was held to be infringed where the State discriminates against goods from outside or imposes hostile burdens on inter-State movement. The impugned provision did not create such discrimination. It treated all manufacturers under the same statutory rule and only limited credit in stock-transfer cases as part of the State's fiscal policy. No constitutional invalidity was made out.

Conclusion: Section 6(3)(d) was not unconstitutional under Articles 301 and 304.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the statute did not confer input tax credit on packing materials used for goods transferred by stock transfer outside Uttarakhand, the earlier circular did not alter that position, and the constitutional challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the text of the taxing provision clearly limits credit in stock-transfer situations and the proviso grants a restricted benefit only for raw materials, an administrative circular cannot enlarge the entitlement beyond the statute, nor can a non-discriminatory fiscal classification be struck down merely because other States adopt a different policy.

---