TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 993
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant at Rs. 7,20,92,631-00 in the monthly return turn over in Form VAT-100 for the months of July to October 2014. Direction was passed remanding the matter back to the assessing authority to allow Input Tax Credit of the invoices of the previous months claimed in subsequent months, in terms of the decision reported in 2018 (90) KGST.L.J 2019 (Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka) and the circular bearing No.15/2017-18 dated 08.02.2018, within three months from the receipt of this order. 3. The brief facts that are made out in the revision petition are that, the Assistant Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes had passed an order in refund proceedings and as against such refund proceedings, the appeals were filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Davanagere Division and against such order STA Nos.74/2018 and STA No.75/2018 came to be filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, challenging the order dated 10.01.2018 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). 4. The question in these proceedings relate to belated claim of Input Tax Credit which was disallowed by the revenue on the ground that, such belated claims f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imed should pertain or information or record of such ITC Invoices should be informed in the Returns to be filed, particularly if such time frame is restricted to the period of 'Tax Period' which can be as short as a month or a quarter, or the period of filing of Returns being 20 days from the end of month concerned or maximum six months from the end of 'Tax period' even for filing of Revised Returns disclosing errors and omissions? (ii) What is the true meaning and purport of Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act, 2003 vis-a-vis Section 35 of the same Act, 2003? 11. Both the said questions have been answered by the learned Single Judge holding that, the right under Section 10 (3) is a indefeasible right and in the absence of any time limit prescribed under Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act, to claim Input Tax Credit, the order of tribunal did not call for interference. 12. The said order of the learned Single Judge was the subject matter of the writ appeal, wherein in W.A. No. 101194/2016 came to be disposed of taking note of the order of the Division Bench in STRP No. 234/2016 in the case of M/s. BEML Vs. State of Karnataka. 13. It is necessary to notice the observations m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which the invoices of the selling Dealer is raised. 26. The Hon'ble Single Judge, has allowed the writ petition holding that: "30. Both the questions framed above are therefore liable to be answered in favour of the petitioners assessees. The claim of ITC cannot be restricted and denied on the stated grounds by Revenue. It cannot be denied only because ITC claim is not made in respect of Sale Invoices which are not pertaining to same Tax Period, nor it can be denied on the ground that such claim is not made immediately in the month or months following the month of purchase of goods question. The machinery provisions of filing Returns Section 35 of the KVAT Act cannot defeat the substantive claims under Section 10 (3) of the Act. The Revenue is entitled only to verify that the Sale Invoices are genuine and valid such ITC claim is not duplicate, fictitious or bogus. Article 265 of the constitution of India does not entitle the State to retain such tax paid by Selling Dealers and deny the claim of ITC credit or set off the hands the Purchasing Dealers who claim such against their Output Tax Liability when they sell goods further, incurring such Output Tax liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fits is available to the manufacturer without any limitation in time or otherwise unless the manufacturer itself chooses not to use the raw material in its excisable product. The credit is, therefore, indefeasible. It should also be noted that there is no co-relation of the raw material and the final product; that is to say, it is not as if credit can be taken only on a final product that is manufactured out of the particular raw material to which the credit is related. The credit may be taken against the excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day that is becomes available." (Emphasis Supplied) 30. It is further held that: 29. Thus the claim of credit of input tax is indefeasible as was the case of CENVAT under Excise law and such credit of ITC under VAT law which is equivalent to tax paid in the chain of sales of the same goods, cannot be denied on the anvil of machinery provisions or even provisions relating to time frame which is law of limitation only bars the remedy rather than negativing the substantive claims under the taxing statutes. 31. Thus, in view of the above recorded findings, we respectfully agree with the opinion....