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 furnishing the particulars for claiming input tax credit in the prescribed Form-A under the U.P. VAT Rules, 2008 was mandatory, and whether substantial compliance by supplying the information in another format entitled the assessee to the credit.
Analysis: The revision challenged the denial of input tax credit on the ground that the required stock details were not filed in Form-A. The governing rule provided that every dealer shall furnish inventories in the form prescribed by the Commissioner. The Court treated the wording as mandatory, holding that the assessee was bound to comply with the prescribed format. The fact that the information was voluminous or supplied electronically did not excuse non-compliance, and the rejection of the claim for want of prescribed form was upheld.
Conclusion: The requirement of filing the information in the prescribed form was mandatory, and the assessee was not entitled to input tax credit on the basis of information furnished in any other format.
Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected because the denial of input tax credit for failure to comply with the prescribed procedural requirement was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the rule governing input tax credit requires inventories or particulars to be furnished in the prescribed form, filing the information in another format does not amount to valid compliance and the benefit can be denied for non-adherence to the mandatory requirement.