Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether running account bills prepared by the Karnataka Water Supply Board could be treated as tax invoices under the proviso to Rule 27(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, and whether the Board could be regarded as Government for that purpose.
Analysis: The proviso to Rule 27(2) was construed as a beneficial provision enacted to enable contractors executing Government works to avail input tax credit on the basis of running account bills, since final bills are not available during execution. Reading the proviso in the context of the scheme of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the Rules, the Court found no basis to exclude the Karnataka Water Supply Board from its ambit merely because it was a statutory creation. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the running account bills prepared by the Board answered the description of tax invoices for the limited purpose of computing tax collected and allowing deduction.
Conclusion: The running account bills prepared by the Board were held to be tax invoices for the purpose of Rule 27(2), and the revision petition failed.