2019 (7) TMI 1196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....014, passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 152/2010 for assessment year 2007-08 under Rule 20(4)(b) of U.P. VAT Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2008"). Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist carries on business of manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, components, spare parts and assessories. On 31.12.2007, the revisionist had goods worth Rs. 5,42,26,571/- in its closing stock that has been purchased against invoice and Form-3B on or after 01.07.2007. Tax at the rate of 2.5% amounting to Rs. 13,55,664/- had been paid by the revisionist on such goods. The revisionist has filed details of his closing stock as on 31.12.2007 on 30.01.2008 and also filed a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submit the requisite information in Form-A but he did not submit the same in Form-A, but all the requisite information was supplied by the revisionist to the Assessing Authority who had failed to take into consideration the same for grant of benefit of Input Tax Credit to the revisionist, instead he proceeded to reject the claim only on the ground that the same is not on the prescribed form. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue on the other hand has submitted that it is mandatory to submit the requisite information in the Form prescribed and in absence of which the information supplied by the revisionist is not liable to be considered and hence same has been rejected. Learned counsel for the Revenue in support of the order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... It is immaterial that the data which was to be supplied to the Assessing Authority was voluminous is no ground for not providing the same in prescribed format. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of M/s K.B. Hides Vs. State of U.P. and Others [2004 NTN (Vol.24)-110]. The Court in paragraph 55 held as under : "55. No doubt some dealers may suffer some hardship by the impugned rules, but it is well settled that equity has no place in taxing laws vide CIT Vs. Fir, Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216, CIT Vs. M.P. Jatia, 1978 (4) SCC 92, D.D. Joshi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 420,............ As is said "Dura lex sed led" which means "the law is hard, but it is the law." The Tribunal has further observed ....