Dismissed

C T O Circle-a Ajmer v. M/S Sharda Agencies Ajmer

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2015STR/69/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a rush concern revision petition where the Revenue challenged the dismissal of appeals deciding input tax credit. The Court held that input tax credit based on a higher VAT invoice is valid despite lower selling prices. No question of law exists; petitions dismissed in limine.

What did the court decide?

Revision petitions dismissed in limine as no question of law arose and the impugned order had no defects warranting interference.

C T O Circle-a Ajmer Vs M/S Sharda Agencies Ajmer — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ***

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

SB Sales Tax Revision Petition no.70/2014

¶5

Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Ajmer vs M/s Sharda Agencies, Vaisahali Nagar, Ajmer

¶6

and

¶7

SB Sales Tax Revision Petition no.69/2014

¶8

Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-A, Ajmer vs

¶9

M/s Sharda Agencies, Vaisahali Nagar, Ajmer

¶10

Date of Judgment ::: 6.2.2015

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA

¶13

Mr. Nitin Jain for the petitioner.

¶14

1.These instant revision petitions are directed against the order dt. 23/8/2013 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in appeal Nos. 38 & 39/2013/Ajmer by which the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed which relate to assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09.

¶15

2.The brief facts are that the assesseerespondent is a dealer of cement. He claimed input tax credit on the basis of VAT invoice whereas he sold goods at the rate lower than the price shown in VAT invoice keeping in view the discount/incentive received. The Assessing

¶16

¶17

Officer did not allow input tax credit and added the discount/incentive as according to him input tax credit could not have been allowed on the basis of VAT invoice which was claimed higher.

¶18

3.On appeals by the assesse, Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) [for short “DC(A)] allowed appeals by holding that assessee was entitled to the claim. The Tax Board, on further appeals by the Revenue, upheld the order of DC(A). Thus the revision petitions by the Revenue.

¶19

4.Learned counsel for the revenue contended that the Assessing Officer was well justified as the discount and commission ought to have been part of trading account and the assessee claimed excess input tax credit which was not legally permissible and the Rajasthan Tax Board was unjustified in holding the same. He further contended that questions of law arise out of the order of Tax Board and need consideration of this court.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue and in my view the assessee-respondent received discount/incentives from the wholesaler/ manufacturer on account of turnover by way of credit notes etc. which was separately shown by the assessee and it is not in conflict under the VAT Act. The assessee managed his

¶21

¶22

affairs in such a manner that he sold goods lower than the value as shown in VAT invoice obviously keeping in mind that discount/commission. The Tax Board after going into the material on record came to a factual finding that the input tax credit was rightly claimed by the assessee and there was no basis for deviation with the same. Act does not prohibit selling of goods lower than purchase value as per VAT invoice but ITC is to be allowed on the basis of VAT invoice

¶23

6.This court in the case of S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition no. 65/2014 (Commercial Tax Officer Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Narendra Kumar Govind Prasad) decided on 19^th January,2015 has analyzed the same issue and come to the conclusion that no question of law is involved as the Tax Board has decided the issue on factual backdrop of the matter which is also apparent in the instant petition. In this case also both the appellate authorities have found that the claim of ITC was correct on the basis of VAT invoice and Tax Board has decided the controversy on the basis of factual finding. Accordingly, no question of law arise in these revision petitions for consideration and I do not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned order so as to cause interference of

¶24

¶25

this Court. Accordingly the revision petitions being devoid of merits stand dismissed in limine.

¶26

(J.K. RANKA),J.

¶27

¶28

Certificate:All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. Om Prakash PA

C T O Circle-a Ajmer v. M/S Sharda Agencies Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C T O Circle-a Ajmer v. M/S Sharda Agencies Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A C T O Ward II Kota Vs M/S Steel Authority of India

A C T O Vs M/S Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd.

A C T O Vs M/S Gora Mal Hari Ram

M/S Shiv Edibles Ltd. Vs C T O Enti EVASION-1 Kota and Others

State through Collector Ajmer Vs Nirmal Chand Soni and Others

Manohar Lal and Anr. Vs Smt Rajveer Kaur Ors.