Original return governs tax benefit claims unless a valid revised return is filed under the VAT law.

Tax authorities could not grant a deduction or tax benefit beyond the claim made in the original return when no valid revised return was filed. The Court noted that the assessee had disclosed land cost at 45% in the returns, and later materials suggesting a higher amount did not oblige the assessing or appellate authorities to allow more than what had originally been claimed. In the absence of a revised return under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the operative limit remained the return as filed, and greater relief was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could be granted tax benefit in excess of the claim made in the original return without filing a revised return.

Analysis: The assessee had disclosed land cost at 45% in the returns, and neither the assessing authority nor the appellate authorities were bound to allow a higher figure merely because later materials suggested a larger amount. The Court applied the principle that tax authorities can only consider the claim made in the return unless the return is validly revised. The provision for revised return under Section 35(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was significant, and in the absence of a revised return, no greater relief could be granted than what was originally claimed.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to any benefit beyond what was claimed in the return, and the answer to the question was against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---