Strict construction of tax concessions bars reduced rate for RCC pipes where cement input tax credit was claimed.

A tax concession granted by notification under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 must be strictly construed and applied only on its express conditions; because the reduced rate for RCC pipes was limited to pipes manufactured without input tax credit on cement, the assessee could not claim the concessional rate while availing that credit. Wrongful availment of input tax credit brought the case within Section 27(2), and the statutory penalty under Section 27(4) therefore followed. The revision was dismissed and the denial of concessional rate as well as the penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to claim reduced rate of tax under G.O.Ms.No.79, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2), dated 23.03.2007, without foregoing input tax credit on cement used in the manufacture of RCC pipes; (ii) Whether penalty under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was sustainable where input tax credit was wrongly availed.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to claim reduced rate of tax under G.O.Ms.No.79, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2), dated 23.03.2007, without foregoing input tax credit on cement used in the manufacture of RCC pipes.

Analysis: The notification issued under Section 30(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 granted a reduction in rate of tax for RCC pipes, but the relevant entry expressly confined the benefit to RCC pipes manufactured without input tax credit on purchase of cement. Section 30(2)(b) permits such exemption or reduction to be subjected to restrictions and conditions specified in the notification. A notification granting tax concession must be strictly construed, and the Court cannot ignore or delete the stated condition.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the reduced rate of tax while availing input tax credit on cement; the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under Section 27(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was sustainable where input tax credit was wrongly availed.

Analysis: The assessment record showed wrongful availment of input tax credit, bringing the case within Section 27(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. On that basis, the statutory penalty under Section 27(4) followed as a consequence of the incorrect claim.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 27(4) was sustainable; the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed in entirety, and the orders of the Tribunal sustaining denial of the concessional rate and the penalty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax concession granted by notification under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 must be strictly construed and enforced with its express conditions, and wrongful availment of input tax credit can attract the statutory penalty provided by the Act.

---