Case Law Details
Mfar Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
In the considered opinion of this Court, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that merely because the dealer has submitted audited statement of accounts in Form VAT 240 he is entitled for input tax credit (ITC). It is pertinent to note that Form VAT 240 is only the audited statement of accounts issued by the Chartered Accountant/Cost Accountant/Tax Practitioner and it can never be construed as returns to compute the net tax liability under Section 10(3) as rightly held by the learned singe Judge. The substantive provision of the KVAT Act i.e., Section 10(3) has to be read harmoniously with the procedural provision of filing of the returns under Section 35 of the KVAT Act. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in holding that filing of returns within the time prescribed under Section 35 of the KVAT Act is mandatory and based upon the returns filed by a dealer the tax liability is determined after deducting the input tax from output tax. Form VAT 240 can never be treated to be returns in any manner.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions as the appellant was claiming input tax credit based upon Form VAT 240 and by no stretch of imagination Form VAT 240 can be treated as a returns for the purposes of claiming input tax credit, especially in the light of the fact that filing of returns to compute the net tax liability has to take place keeping in view Section 10(3) and 10(4) of the KVAT Act.
The learned Single Judge was also justified in holding that in case such a petition is allowed there will be two classes of dealers under the same VAT Act, 2003 i.e., dealers who are not required to file Form VAT 240 and dealers who are required to file Form VAT 240 i.e., who are having turnover of more than Rs.100 lakhs and it will certainly amount to discrimination between dealers which form one class under the KVAT Act, 2003. This Court does not find reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the learned Single Judge.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
