TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking note of various incentives under Industrial Policy of the State Government as also the benefits available under the Act. The petitioner is entitled to benefit of input tax credit on the local purchases made by it in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The input tax credit is adjusted against the output liability as per Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. Some purchases were made by the petitioner from the units availing benefit of remission under the scheme framed vide SRO 91 dated 16.03.2006 issued by the State Government under Section 79-A of the Act. The petitioner has no claim under the said remission scheme issued under Section 79-A of the Act and has discharged its tax liability, as per provisions of the Act. The input tax credit of the petitioner was higher than the output liability, therefore, the petitioner carried excess input tax credit in the books. 3. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued a clarification dated 10.12.2007, in view of doubt expressed by the assessing authorities with regard to the admissibility of the claim of refund of input tax credit in excess of 4% tax to the local registered dealers on the sales of goods in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs Commissioner of Cus., 2006 (194) ELT 11 (SC), Eicher Motors vs Union of India, 1999 (106) ELT 3(SC), Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs Dai Ichi Kakaria Ltd., 1999 (112) ELT 353 (SC), Union of India vs Suksha International & Nutan Gem & Anr., 1089 (39) ELT 503 (SC), CCE vs. Himalayan Co-op Milk Product Union 2000 (122) ELT 327 (SC), Comm. Taxes Officer v. A Insrastructure Limited (2015) 15 SCC 98, Comm. Taxes Officer v Jyoti Electronics 2016 (336) ELT 517 (Raj.), Steel Strips Ltd v. CESTAT, New Delhi, 2010 (262) ELT 129 (P&H). 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has not deposited any amount by way of input credit and therefore is not entitled to refund of input credit. It is further submitted that against an order passed by the assessing authority, an appeal ought to have been filed by the petitioner under Section 72 of the Act. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that circular/clarification cannot be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and by issuing subsequent circular, the department cannot incor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (viii) in respect of goods purchased by him for the period his certificate of registration is under suspension; (ix) in respect of sale of goods exempt from tax as specified in Schedule „A‟; and (x) who gets the benefit of tax remission; Section 22 reads as under: Section 22: Input Tax Credit exceeding tax liability. (1) If the input tax credit of a registered dealer other than an exporter selling goods outside the territory of India determined under section 21 for a tax period exceeds the tax liability for that period, the excess credit shall be set off against any outstanding tax, penalty or interest under the Act or the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (2) The excess input tax credit remaining after adjustment under sub-section (1) may be carried over as an input tax credit to the subsequent tax period or periods but not beyond the end of the second financial year. (3) In case where input tax credit is carried forward, an annual credit statement may be forwarded to the dealer concerned and the claims reconciled accordingly. (4) The refund of excess input tax credit shall be allowed only after th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....joined Schedule to the notification dated 16.03.2006 which in unequivocal terms states that in the considered opinion of the government, there is a need to provide tax incentive to the industry in the shape of tax remission under the Value Added Tax regime in a manner as does not break the Valued Added Tax chain. The petitioner only gets the benefit of price adjustment. The petitioner has paid the tax which is reflected from the tax invoices issued under Rule 63 of the J&K Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Thus, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has misinterpreted the scope of Section 21(9)(X) of the Act and the clarification issued by him is in contravention of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. Accordingly, the orders passed by the assessing authority and the consequent demand notices which are based upon the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. 9. Reverting to the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 72 of the Act, we are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission for two reasons, namely, (i) the circula....