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 the assessee was entitled to input tax credit without the restriction under Section 13(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008, read with Rule 23(6) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008, when the tax paid on the sale of manufactured goods exceeded the input tax credit claimed.
Analysis: The controversy turned on the application of the statutory restriction on input tax credit where manufactured goods are sold below cost price. The Tribunal found that the assessee had claimed input tax credit of Rs. 1,43,83,587/- while tax deposited on the sale of manufactured urea was Rs. 13,27,46,784/-, which was far higher than the credit claimed. On that factual foundation, the conditions for applying the reversal mechanism under Section 13(1)(f) were not attracted, and Rule 23(6) did not justify further reduction of the credit. The revision court found no reason to differ from that conclusion.
Conclusion: The restriction under Section 13(1)(f) did not apply, and the assessee was rightly allowed the input tax credit. The decision was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the statutory conditions for curtailing input tax credit were not established on the facts found by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the tax paid on the sale of manufactured goods is substantially higher than the input tax credit claimed, the reversal restriction on input tax credit for sales below cost price does not apply.