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, engaged in job work of manufacturing refractory products from raw materials supplied by another concern, was entitled to input tax credit on capital goods under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Analysis: The assessee manufactured refractory products only on a job-work basis using materials supplied by the principal concern, and the finished goods were ultimately used by that concern. On these facts, the assessee could not be treated as having used the capital goods in the manner required to claim input tax credit under Section 19(2)(iv) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The burden of proving entitlement to input tax credit lay on the dealer under Section 17 of the Act, and that burden was not discharged. The reliance placed on Rule 10(4)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 was unavailing, as that clause came into force after the relevant assessment period. The claim was also inconsistent with the nature of job work recognised in the materials placed before the Court.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to input tax credit on the capital goods, and the rejection of the claim was in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A dealer engaged only in job work, using materials supplied by another concern, cannot claim input tax credit on capital goods unless the statutory conditions for such credit are satisfied and the burden of proving entitlement is discharged.