Conditional input tax credit and penalty for tax evasion under Rajasthan VAT turn on subsidised sales and proof of deliberate evasion.

Input tax credit under the Rajasthan VAT Act is a conditional statutory concession, and where vehicles are sold at a subsidised or lower price, the credit cannot exceed the output tax payable; on the facts stated, reversal of credit was justified. Penalty under Section 61(2)(b) requires a deliberate and conscious attempt to evade tax, and mere interpretational is insufficient; because the transactions were recorded and disclosed, penalty was not leviable. The text states that the Rajasthan Tax Board's order was upheld, sustaining the credit reversal and the deletion of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether targeted discounts and rebates received on purchase of vehicles could be treated as subsidy so as to attract reversal of input tax credit under Section 18(3A) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003; (ii) whether penalty under Section 61(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was leviable on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether targeted discounts and rebates received on purchase of vehicles could be treated as subsidy so as to attract reversal of input tax credit under Section 18(3A) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Input tax credit under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is a statutory concession and not an absolute right. Section 18(3A) specifically provides that where goods purchased in the State are subsequently sold at subsidized price, the input tax allowable cannot exceed the output tax payable on such goods. The expressions used in the Act, including the definitions of input tax, output tax, sale price and reverse tax, support the view that the legislature intended to restrict credit where the sale is at a subsidized or lesser price. The provision operates with overriding force and its applicability depends on the factual matrix of the sale transaction. On the facts found, the assessee sold the vehicles at a price lower than the purchase price and therefore fell within the scope of the provision.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue; reversal of input tax credit was justified.

Issue (ii): whether penalty under Section 61(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was leviable on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Penalty is attracted only where there is a deliberate and conscious attempt to evade tax. The transactions were duly recorded in the books and disclosed in the returns, and no material showed a conscious design to evade tax. The nature of the dispute was interpretational, and the precedents relied upon by the Revenue were treated as inapposite on the facts and statutory setting of the case.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue; penalty was not leviable.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Rajasthan Tax Board was upheld, the input tax credit reversal was sustained, and the deletion of penalty was also sustained, resulting in dismissal of all the revisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit under the VAT law is a conditional statutory concession, and where goods are sold at a subsidized or lower price, the credit cannot exceed the output tax payable; penalty requires proof of deliberate tax evasion, not merely an interpretational dispute.

---