Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Though the controversy in hand has been dealt with and the relevant provisions of Section 10(3) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, ("KVAT Act, 2003" for short) had come up for interpretation before this Court Date of Judgment 10-01-2018 W.P.Nos.58917-58928/2016 and Connected Matters Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

in some of the judgments rendered by this Court including the Division Benches, the controversy does not appear to have died-down even with these judgments, as the Assessing Authorities of the Respondent Department have continued to disallow the Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, 2003 on the ground that the claim of Input Tax Credit against the Output Tax Liability of the assessees did not pertain to the same 'Tax period' for which Output Tax Liability and Net Tax Liability was to be determined in accordance with Section 10(3) of the Act and assailing these assessment/re-assessment orders, this batch of several writ petitions came to be filed before this Court and after hearing both the sides, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

17.3. He urged that in the absence of any specific statutory time limit in Section 10 (3) of the KVAT Act,2003, no such restriction for claiming the ITC in the next month itself could have been placed by the Date of Judgment 10-01-2018 W.P.Nos.58917-58928/2016 and Connected Matters Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Respondent Department. He submitted that as soon as the purchases were duly recorded in the Books of Accounts maintained by the petitioners Dealers as per the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003, the information of ITC was duly given and claimed in the Returns filed under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, 2003.

such Rebate did not in any way affect his right to claim the said amount which was ultimately due to him under the KVAT Act, 2003, nor it amounts to a contravention resulting in liability to pay tax, interest and penalty, as was sought to be levied by the Assessing Authorities and the entire approach of the Assessing Authorities and the first Appellate Authority was contrary to law and run counter to the spirit of the KVAT Act, 2003.

(b) A similar view was expressed subsequently by another Division Bench of this Court later, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Manyata Promotors Pvt. Ltd. decided on 30/09/2015 ( 2017 ) 97 VST 479 ( Kar ) and it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that under Section 10 (4) of the KVAT Act, 2003, the Input Tax Credit can be claimed only when the Input Invoice is with the Registered Dealer and nowhere in the KVAT Act, 2003, it has been specified that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) should be claimed in the month Date of Judgment 10-01-2018 W.P.Nos.58917-58928/2016 and Connected Matters Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.

Net Tax liability under Section 10 of the KVAT Act, 2003, can be allowed to override the substantive provisions of Section 10 of the KVAT Act, 2003, contained in chapter II of the said KVAT Act, 2003.

26. In the absence of any valid answer and submission on behalf of the Respondent State, this Court can safely conclude that the machinery provisions cannot be allowed to override and defeat the substantive claim of the Input Tax Credits under Section 10(3) of the KVAT Act, 2003, which without any restriction of the time frame, allowed such deduction or credit of the ITC against the OPT liability of the Dealer in question.