STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CENTUM INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revenue has preferred these Revision Petitions challenging the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal holding that the authorities were not justified in denying the input tax credit on the principle that once tax has been paid, the party should not be asked to pay tax again and accordingly allowed the input tax credit.

(2.) The assessee is a private limited Company engaged in manufacture, sales, supply and service of electrical and electronic components such as communication modules, subsystems, components including plastic, sheet metal, machined parts, etc., The assessee is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with TIN No. 29770214201. During the audit it was noticed that the assessee Company has claimed input tax rebate in respect of local registered purchases. They calculated VAT at 4% and 12.5% separately in the invoices as local sales as applicable. In respect of Central Sales Tax, the assessee has charged and collected at 4% against 'C' form/ 'D' Form and 12.5% without statutory form separately in the invoices. In the monthly returns filed in respect of the period of February 2007, the claim of input tax of Rs.2,43,306/- was rejected on the ground that the said claim was not pertaining to the tax for the period February 2007. It was held that the assessee has to claim input tax rebate in the respective period of purchases effected and also on the ground that the assessee had not filed revised returns within 6 months as provided under Section 35(4) of the Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the assessing authority and held that as the input tax claims have not been claimed, the returns filed during succeeding month of purchase and the input tax credit has been claimed after 6 months from the date of the purchase, i.e., in the returns filed for the month of February 2007, the appeal came to be dismissed.