Input tax credit limited to scheduled tax rate, while only genuinely classified paint-related goods qualified for higher-rate treatment.

Input tax credit under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was confined to the tax rate prescribed in the Schedule for the relevant commodity, so excess tax actually paid on purchase did not enlarge credit entitlement and had to be pursued, if at all, by refund. The Court also held that only commodities genuinely falling within the paint category could attract the higher rate: white base, enamels, thinner and primer qualified on the facts, but wall putty, wood polish, CEM and white cement did not. The assessment was therefore remitted for recomputation on that limited basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit was admissible only at the rate prescribed for the commodity under the Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and not at the higher rate actually paid on purchase; (ii) Whether the assessee had to seek refund under the Rules for tax paid in excess of the scheduled rate, and whether all the commodities claimed could be treated as "paints" for the higher rate.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit was admissible only at the rate prescribed for the commodity under the Schedule to the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and not at the higher rate actually paid on purchase.

Analysis: Input tax credit follows the rate at which the commodity is taxed under the Schedule. If tax is collected in excess of the scheduled rate, the excess does not enlarge the credit entitlement and the person who paid such excess tax must seek refund for that portion. The existence of circulars and the practical confusion regarding paints did not alter the basic statutory position.

Conclusion: The answer was in favour of the Revenue; credit was confined to the scheduled rate of tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had to seek refund under the Rules for tax paid in excess of the scheduled rate, and whether all the commodities claimed could be treated as "paints" for the higher rate.

Analysis: The Tribunal's view was sustained only in part. A genuine misunderstanding existed as to paints in general, so the higher-rate treatment could extend to white base, enamels, thinner, and primer. But wall putty, wood polish, CEM, and white cement could not be treated as paints. To that extent the Tribunal's order had to be interfered with, and the assessment had to be recomputed after verifying that higher tax had been collected on sales and no refund had been claimed.

Conclusion: The answer was partly in favour of the assessee and partly in favour of the Revenue; the matter was remitted for recomputation on the limited basis indicated.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part: the legal principle on input tax credit was accepted, but relief was restricted to the commodities that could reasonably fall within paints, with recomputation directed accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit cannot exceed the rate prescribed in the Schedule for the relevant commodity, and any excess tax collection must be recovered, if at all, by refund; however, classification of goods for tax rate purposes must be determined on the basis of the actual commodity description and the surrounding statutory confusion, where genuinely present.

---