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 a dealer could claim input tax credit for the period prior to registration on the basis of the substituted proviso to Section 16(2) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and whether the retrospective effect of registration extended beyond the limited purposes stated in that proviso.
Analysis: The substituted proviso to Section 16(2) deemed registration to take effect from the date of commencement of business, but only for the purposes of payment of tax under Section 6(5) and opting for payment of tax under Section 8, subject to the conditions stated therein. Input tax credit under Section 11 was available only to a registered dealer, and the proviso did not enlarge that entitlement. The Court approved the view that the benefit of retrospective registration under the amended proviso was confined to the specified clauses and did not authorise a claim for input tax credit for a pre-registration period.
Conclusion: The claim for input tax credit was not maintainable, and the issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Department.
Final Conclusion: Retrospective registration under the amended proviso did not confer a general right to input tax credit for a period prior to registration, and the dealer's revision failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming of registration from the date of commencement of business, when confined to specified purposes, cannot be extended to create an entitlement to input tax credit absent registered status under the Act.