Input tax credit cannot be denied for delayed claim or tax-period mismatch where valid invoices support the entitlement.

Input tax credit under Section 10(3) of the Karnataka VAT Act is stated to arise from the substantive charging scheme and not to be defeated merely because the claim relates to a different tax period or was not made in the immediate return. Section 35 is treated as a procedural return-filing mechanism that cannot override substantive credit where the claim is supported by valid invoices and is not shown to be fictitious or bogus. The analysis further links input tax credit to the VAT chain as an indefeasible credit and notes that denial on such grounds would be inconsistent with Article 265.

---

---

Issues: Whether input tax credit under Section 10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be denied merely because the claim related to a different tax period or was not made immediately in the return period, and whether the return-filing machinery under Section 35 could override the substantive entitlement to credit.

Analysis: The entitlement to input tax credit was held to arise from the substantive scheme of Section 10(3) and not to depend on a restrictive time-frame tied to the same tax period of the sale invoice or purchase. The return-filing machinery under Section 35 was treated as procedural and incapable of defeating the substantive credit, especially where the claim was not shown to be fictitious, bogus, or unsupported by valid invoices. The reasoning also treated input tax credit as analogous to an indefeasible credit in the VAT chain, and held that denial of such credit would be inconsistent with Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The denial of input tax credit on the ground of mismatch of tax period or delayed claim was unsustainable, and the assessee's claim was upheld.

---