Karnataka High Court
M/S Famento (Karnatraka) Mining vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
Author: S. G. Pandit
Bench: S. G. Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB
STRP No. 100004 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No.100004/2017
BETWEEN:
M/S. FAMENTO (KARNATAKA) MINING
COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,
(NOW KNOWN AS FOMENTO RESOURCES
PRIVATE LIMITED),
SHRI. YALAGURESH,
BEHIND KARNATAKA BAND ATM,
STATION ROAD, DIST: DHARWAD,
DHARWAD-580007.
(REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
C. S. KULKARNI).
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ATUL K. ALUR AND
SRI. N. P. VIVEK MEHTA, ADVOCATES)
Digitally
signed by
VALLI AND:
MARIMUTHU
Location: High THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Court of
Karnataka REPRESENTED BY,
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-1,
9TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560009.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J M., ADDL. ADV. GENERAL FOR
SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB
STRP No. 100004 of 2017
THIS SALES TAX REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT,
2003, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2016 PASSED IN STA
No.519/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED
UNDER SECTION 63 OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX
ACT, 2003.
THIS SALE TAX REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 30.01.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, K. V. ARAVIND J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, [hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT Act' for short], impugning the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, [hereinafter referred to as 'KAT' for short], in STA No.519/2015, dated 30.11.2016.
2. The petition is filed raising the following questions of law;
"i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing ITC on normal loss / material loss due to spillage, ground loss, and during transportation?-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017
ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing ITC as per Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act?
iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 19 is applicable in the petitioner case?
iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the audit authority and appellate authority?
v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the words used in Section 19(1) lost or destroyed is also applicable to normal loss, material loss due to spillage, grounds loss etc.?
vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in extending the provisions of Section 19(1) to the normal loss, material loss due to spillage, grounds loss, etc.?
vii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not following the judgment rendered under the Central Excise Act?
viii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dissolving the ITC at 0.65% on wastage / loss due to spillage, handling, ground loss etc.?
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017
ix) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in partly allowing the appeal?"
3. This Court, by order dated 04.12.2017, has admitted the petition to consider the following question of law;
"Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not allowing ITC on normal loss/material loss due to spillage, ground loss, and during transportation?"
4. The brief facts are, the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of buying, handling, processing and sale of Iron ore in the name and style of M/s. Fomento (Karnataka) Mining Company Private Limited, now known as Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.,
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-2, Hubli, ['DCCT (Audit)' for short] passed re- assessment order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003, by restricting input tax credit at Rs.3,40,326/- towards loss of Iron-ore valued at Rs.85,08,160/-, by orders dated 30.12.2013 for the tax period 2008-2009. Against the orders of re-assessment, the petitioner -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi. The Appellate Commissioner by order dated 11.09.2015 passed an order under Section 62(6) of the KVAT Act holding that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that there is loss of Iron ore on account of spillage, moisture loss, ground loss etc., by applying the provisions of Section 19 of the KVAT Act, upheld the order of DCCT (Audit), rejecting the claim of proportionate input tax credit.
6. Being further aggrieved, the petitioner preferred appeal before the KAT, Bengaluru. The Tribunal by order dated 30.11.2016 upheld the view of the Appellate Authority by holding that petitioner is not eligible for input tax credit, on loss in transportation, ground loss and loss due to moisture.
7. Heard Sri Atul K Alur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gangadhar J M., Additional Advocate General for Smt. Kirtilata R Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that provisions of Section 19 of the KVAT Act are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Further submits that the material loss due to spillage, ground loss, transportation, material loss while grading and separating the Iron ore, material loss due to moisture, material loss while handling the Iron ore, are to be treated as wastage, which is normal in the course of business operations. Such losses having occurred in the course of the goods being used in the course of business operations, it cannot be construed as goods lost or destroyed so as to apply Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act. Further submits that the provisions of Section 19 of KVAT Act can be invoked only when the goods are not used in the course of business. Where the goods are lost in the course of business, it cannot be held that goods are not used in the course of business or lost or destroyed to deny input tax credit.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, places reliance on the following judgments; -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017
i) State of Karnataka V/s Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited, Race Course road, Bangalore - 2021(101) KGST L.J. 231 (HC) (DB).
ii) Interfit Techno Products Ltd., V/s Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and another - (2015) 81 VST 389 (Mad).
iii) Steel Authority of India Ltd V/s Collector of Central Excise - Appeal (Civil) 3406-11 of 1990.
iv) M/s. Rupa & Company Limited, Tirupur V/s.
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai-6 & another - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2350 of 2006 & M.P.No.1 of 2006.
v) M/s. ARS Steels & Alloy International Pvt. Ltd., V/s. The State Tax Officer, Group-I, Chennai - W.P. No.2885 of 2021 and allied matters.
vi) M/s. Saradhambika Paper and Board Mills Private Limited V/s. The State Tax Officer, Gobichettypalayam & another - W.P. No. 590 of 2021 and allied matters.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017
vii) M/s. R.K. Ganapathy Chettiar V/s. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kangeyam - W.P. No. 14166 of 2021 and allied matters.
viii) M/s. Global Calcium Private Limited V/s. The Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) Hosur (North) - Writ Petition No.17420 to 17423 of 2015.
ix) M/s. Aisan Fabrix Private Limited V/s. The Principle Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai - W.P. (MD) NO. 5212 of 2014 and allied matters.
x) Eastman Exports Global Clothing Pvt. Ltd., V/s.
The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Tirupur- W. A No.1094 of 2020 and allied matters.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Iron ore claimed to be lost would attract Section 19 of the KVAT Act. Section 19 of the KVAT Act mandates refund of input tax credit if the goods are not used in the course of business. Further submits that, to the extent of goods claimed to have lost are not used in the course of business, Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act has rightly been invoked by the Revenue. In terms of Section -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 19 of the KVAT Act, even if the goods are lost or destroyed after claiming input rebate, the input rebate has to be reversed, which would be in terms of Section 19 of the KVAT Act.
11. We have given our careful consideration to the contentions raised by both parties, perused the petition papers and the judgments cited at bar.
12. Section 19 of the KVAT Act, reads as under;
"19. Change in use [or tax payment scheme] after deduction of input tax.-
(1) Where a registered dealer has deducted input tax on any goods and those goods are not used in the course of his business or lost or destroyed, any input tax deducted becomes repayable in the period following the date on which those goods were put to such other use.
(2) Where such goods have been wholly or mainly used or are intended for use in sale of taxable goods or in sale of any goods in the course of export out of the territory of India prior to the change of use, [input tax repayable shall be calculated] on the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 prevailing market value of such goods at the time of change of use.
(3) Where a registered dealer after deducting input tax on any goods used in the course of his business, opts for composition of tax under section 15, the input tax deducted on the goods held in stock on the date on which the dealer so opts shall be repayable by the dealer in the tax period following such date and the input tax so repayable shall be calculated on the market value of such goods on such date."
13. On plain reading of Section 19, it is clear that when a registered dealer has deducted input tax on any goods, and those goods are not used in the course of his business or lost or destroyed, input tax deducted is repayable. Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act does not provide for any exception from repayment of input tax credit when the goods are not used in the course of business or lost or destroyed, with reference to any nature of business, circumstances or situation. It is settled position of law, while interpreting the fiscal statute, the provision has to be read on its plain text without reading in or reading out words. In the absence of Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act providing any exceptions
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 depending on situations or circumstances or nature of business from repayment of input tax, the contention of the petitioner that goods were lost due to spillage, transportation, while grading and separation and moisture loss and the same would not fall within the scope of "lost or destroyed" as is referred to Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act and not liable to repay the input credit in terms of Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act, is not acceptable.
14. As per the submissions of the petitioner as well as the books of accounts as reflected in the balance sheet, as pointed out by the DCCT (Audit) in the re-assessment order, it is clear that loss of Iron ore valued at Rs.85,08,160/- is due to transportation, handling, processing, ground loss and proportionate input tax credit at Rs.3,40,326/- is reflected, thus clear that the iron ore is not used in the course of business to that extent.
15. In the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the Iron ore valued at Rs.85,08,160/- is not used in the course of business. Hence, the authorities have rightly held
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 that proportionate input tax credit is to be repayable by the petitioner.
16. The further contention of the petitioner that loss of Iron ore due to transportation, handling, processing, ground loss, would not constitute "lost" in terms of Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act, is not correct.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on various decisions and the same are detailed as under;
In Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) and others in W.A.No.1094 of 2020 and allied matters, Dated 28.02.2023, the controversy before the Court though regarding interpretation to Section 19 of TNVAT Act, which is corresponding to Section 19 of the KVAT Act, the facts involved in both the cases are not similar. The Madras High Court was considering the issue as to, converting Yarn into fabric and fabric into garments involving loss of loose fibers, which is invisible and result in manufacturing loss. In such circumstances, the applicability of Section 19(9) of TNVAT
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 Act has been examined. The Madras High Court concluded on interpreting Section 19(9) of TNVAT Act and held that manufacturing/invisible loss in the course of manufacture, the loss is inevitable and inherent part of the manufacture and held that Section 19(9) of TNVAT Act is not attracted. Whereas, in the present case, except the self-serving statement of the petitioner that loss of Iron ore due to transportation, handling, processing, ground loss was in the course of business, no other material is placed on record. Further, as seen from the replies filed by the petitioner, it is only on estimation on probabilities not a realistic loss. Even if it is held to be loss, on strict interpretation of Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act, even if the goods are lost on which input tax credit is claimed, Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act mandates to repay the said input tax credit without any just exceptions.
18. Section 19(1), (2) and (9) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "TNVAT Act" for short), reads as under;
"19. Input tax credit
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 (1) There shall be input tax credit of the amount of tax paid Omitted [or payable] under this Act, by the registered dealer to the seller on his purchases of taxable goods specified in the First Schedule: ...
(2) Input tax credit shall be allowed for the purchase of goods made within the State from a registered dealer and which are for the purpose of-
(i) re-sale by him within the State; or
(ii) use as input in manufacturing or processing of goods in the State: or
(iii) use as containers, labels and other materials for packing of goods in the State: or
(iv) use as capital goods in the manufacture of taxable goods.
(v) Sale in the course of inter-State trade
or commerce falling under sub-
section (1) and (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Central Act 74 of 1956)
(vi) Agency transactions by the principal within the State in the manner as may be prescribed."
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 (9) No input tax credit shall be available to a registered dealer for tax paid [or Payable] at the time of purchase of goods, if such-
(i) goods are not sold because of any theft, loss or destruction, for any reason, including natural calamity. If a dealer has already availed input tax credit against purchase of such goods, there shall be reversal of tax credit;
Or
(ii) inputs destroyed in fire accident or lost while in storage even before use in the manufacture of final products; or
(iii) inputs damaged in transit or destroyed at some intermediary stage of manufacture."
19. Section 19 of TNVAT Act is corresponding to Section 19 of the KVAT Act. If the contention of the petitioner is examined on comparison with similar provision under the TNVAT Act, input tax credit is denied when the goods are not sold due to theft, loss or destruction or for any reason. Section 19(9)(iii) of TNVAT Act would further restrict the claim of input tax credit even when the goods are damaged in transit or destroyed at some intermediary stage of
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 manufacture. On comparative analysis of the provisions of both the enactments, it is clear that if the goods are not used in the course of business or lost or destroyed, the petitioner is liable to repay the input tax credit.
20. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited, Race Course Road, Bangalore reported in 2021(101) KGST L.J. 231 (HC) (DB) was dealing a different factual situation. The dealer therein was transporting Iron ore by rail to the ports for onward exports. On stock verification, the authorities found that there was shortage of few metric tons of Iron ore. The prescribed authority issued proposition notice, treating the difference as suppressed taxable turnover on the basis of the report of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This Court held that merely because there is a shortage of stock, the difference cannot be held to be suppression that too on the basis of the report of the CBI. There is a possibility of transit / handling loss. The said judgment does not cover the situation as contemplated under Section 19(1) of KVAT
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB STRP No. 100004 of 2017 Act. No law has been laid down on interpretation of Section 19(1) of the KVAT Act.
21. The other judgments of the Madras High Court deals with Section 19(9) of the TNVAT Act wherein the goods were used in the course of business and the quantity of goods lost was considered as invisible loss in the process of manufacture. The nature of loss claimed in the present case i.e. due to transportation, handling, processing, ground loss etc., are not the nature of losses as considered by the Madras High Court. In fact, Section 19(9) of the TNVAT Act specifically disentitles the input tax credit to the goods lost in transit or for any other reason. In view of the above distinction, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no assistance.
22. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the authorities and the Tribunal does not call for interference and question of law is to be answered in the affirmative.
23. Hence, the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6590-DB
STRP No. 100004 of 2017
Order
i) The petition is dismissed.
ii) The question of law is answered in the
affirmative, in favour of the Respondent Authorities and against the Petitioner.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MV