Case Law Details
Pooja Cotspin Limited Vs State of Himachal (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The first proviso to Section 62(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 enables the State to issue notification and allow any dealer to avail of any incentive on tax, if such incentive has been declared by the State before the commencement of the VAT Act. In exercise of such powers, the State Government issued notification dated 19.01.2006 and allowed the incentive of deferment to new and existing Industrial Units by applying all terms and conditions specified in deferment scheme.
The lump-sum payment of composite tax under Section 16(2) of the Act in no way can be equated with the powers of State under Section 62(5) of the Act as both have separate and distinct fields of operation. There cannot be any overlapping between the two provisions, therefore, disallowance of Rs. 17,06,715/- payable from ITC to the petitioner by invoking the provisions either of Section 7 or Section 16(2) of the Act is wholly illegal and against the mandate of law.
The question of law under consideration is thus answered accordingly. It is held that the payment of presumptive tax under Section 7 or lump-sum tax by way of composition under Section 16(2) of the Act read with Rules 45 to 50 of the rules have their application in the specific field expressly contemplated in the Act and cannot be expanded to include deferment of tax notified under Section 62(5) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
