Karnataka High Court
M/S. R.B. Seth Shree Ram Narasingdas vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800
WP No. 112380 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 112380 OF 2017 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. R.B. SETH SHREE RAM NARASINGDAS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI.AJAY SARAF,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
D.NO.1499/2, BOX NO.38,
BELLARY ROAD, KARIGANUR,
HOSAPETE-583201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI H.R.KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-560001.
SUJATA
SUBHASH 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
PAMMAR COMMERCIAL TAXES,
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA,
KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(AUDIT)-1, CHITWADGI,
ISR ROAD, HUDA COMPLEX,
HOSAPETE-583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800
WP No. 112380 of 2017
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:
I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT, PRIOR TO ITS
AMENDMENT VIDE THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015 DOES NOT RESTRICT THE PETITIONER TO
CLAIM INPUT TAX CREDIT IN THE MONTH OF PURCHASE EFFECTED
BY ACCOUNTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE MONTH IN WHICH THE PURCHASE INVOICES WERE ISSUED BY
THE SELLING DEALERS.
II) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT, AFTER ITS
AMENDMENT VIDE THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2015, IS RETROSPECTIVELY OPERATIVE WITH
EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2005.
III) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI DECLARING THAT THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT, EVEN AFTER THE
INSERTION OF THE PROVISON BY KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED
TAX(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE
CASE OF M/S.SONAL APPAREL THE BENEFIT OF CLAIMING INPUT
TAX REBATE IS AVAILABLE IN TH MONTH OF PURCHASE EFFECTED
BY ACCOUNTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IRRESPECTIVE OF
THE MONTH IN WHICH PURCHASE INVOICES WERE ISSUED BY THE
SELLING DEALERS.
IV) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DECLARATION IN
THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
REASSESSMENT ORDER IN NO.CTO(A)/1/HPT/2017-18
DATED:14.11.2017 PASSED BY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT)-
1 HOSPET, THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN, UNDER SECTIONS 39(1),
72(2) AND 36 OF KVAT ACT,2003 FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2012-13
AND NOTICE OF DEMAND IN FORM VAT 180 ISSUED IN PURSUANCE
THEREOF IN SO FAR AS DISALLOWING INPUT TAX CREDIT CLAIMED
AS PER SECTION 10(3) OF THE KVAT ACT IN THE MONTH OF
ACCOUNTING THE PURCHASE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
ANNEXURE-C, AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800
WP No. 112380 of 2017
ORDER
Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondents.
2. The petitioner was denied input tax credit for
having filed the returns belatedly i.e., after six months.
Therefore, this petition to declare that the provisions of section
10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act prior to its
amendment does not restrict the petitioner to claim input tax
credit in the month of purchase effected by accounting in the
books of accounts irrespective of the month, in which the
purchase invoices were issued by the selling dealers.
3. The issue involved in this petition was examined by
the Division Bench of this Court in STRP No.234/2016, wherein
at para 32 it is held as follows:
"32. The main issue is whether the
assessees who have filed the returns belatedly are
entitled for input credit or not. A plain reading of
provision of Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, 2003,
shows that no time limit or restriction is prescribed
for availing the input tax credit. In Dai Ichi
Karkaria Ltd. (stated supra), the Apex court has
held that credit is indefeasible. The Modvat credit
is similar to the Input Tax Credit in this case.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2800
Therefore, no exception can be taken to the view
taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge that the Input
Tax Credit cannot be denied on the anvil of the
machinery provisions or the provisions relating to
the time frame. Hence, in our considered view, the
assesses shall be eligible to avail the input tax
credit as and when the tax is paid by them,
without any limitation of time."
4. What emerges from the ratio enunciated by the
Division Bench of this Court is that the assesses are eligible to
avail the input tax credit as and when the tax is paid by them
without any limitation of time. Therefore, this petition also
requires to be disposed off in light of the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court.
5. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the 3rd
respondent at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.
6. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to avail the
benefit of input tax credit if tax is already paid.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK
Ct:ANB
