CONSULTEASE.COM
MilesWeb728x90

Sign In

Browse By

SC in the case of ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Case Covered:

ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd.

Versus

The Commercial Tax Officer

Facts of the case:

In this case a provision of Tamil Nadu VAT was challenged. It curtailed the input tax credit and put a condition on it. Section 19 having 20 sub sections. It placed various conditions on eligibility of ITC. The issue raised in this case was for sub sec 11 of section 19 of TNVAT which reads as under.

“19(11)   In case any registered dealer fails to claim input tax credit in respect of any transaction of  taxable purchase in any month, he shall make the claim before the end of the financial year or before ninety days from the date of purchase, whichever is later.” 

The court considered various judgements related to the interpretation of fiscal statutes. The court considered the judgment of same court in case of RK Garg, In which it was held that

“Another rule of equal importance is that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with   greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc. It has been said by no less   a   person   than   Holmes,  J.,  that  the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints,   because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or   straitjacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters,   where,  having   regard   to   the   nature of   the   problems  required   to  be  dealt   with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to   the   legislature.”

Provision in the statute is not to be read in isolation rather it has to read along with other related provisions-

In this regard the judgement of Kailash Chandra and another versus Mukundi lal and others, 2002 (2) SCC 678. Was considered by the honorable court.

“A provision in the statute is not to be read   in   isolation.   It   has   to   be   read   with other   related provisions in the  Act itself, 19 more particularly, when the subject ­matter dealt with in different sections or parts of the same statute is the same or similar in nature.”

The court observed that section 3 is the levy section which creates the levy. Section 19(11) contains a   condition  for claiming the input tax credit. The submission that Section 19 is inconsistent to Section 3(3) is wholly misconceived.

The judgment of AIR (1967) SC 1823, Sales Tax officer, Ponkunnam and another versus K.I. Abraham was considered. There was no power under the section to prescribe a time limit but it was prescribed and the court rightly dropped the provision putting a time limit. But the same is not the case with current provision. Here the provision is given in the Act itself. 

Another case considered was Commissioner  of Central Excise, Madras versus Home  Ashok Leyland   Ltd.,  2007.

The High Court had held that Rule 57­E as amended was clarificatory in nature and shall not affect the right of manufacturer to claim MODVAT credit for duty paid on inputs.

Even this case is not directly related to the current case. Many of the other judgements were discussed. 

Observations & Judgement of the court:

The taxing statute has  to be strictly construed. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied and language used in taxing statute had to be looked into fairly. The benefits envisaged in the taxing statute had to be extended as per the restrictions and conditions envisaged therein.

The following issues raised in this judgment were answered accordingly.

(1) Whether Section 19(11)  violates  Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ? 

No

(2) Whether Section 19(11)  is  inconsistent  with Section 3(3) of the Act ? 

No

(3) Whether Section 19(11) is directory provision, non­compliance   of   which   cannot   be   a   ground   for denial of input tax credit to the appellants ? 

No, It is a Mandatory provision.

(4) Whether denial of  input tax credit to the appellants is contrary to the scheme of VAT Act, 2006 ? 

No

(5) Whether  Assessing  Authorities  could have extended the period for claiming Input Tax Credit 

No

Download the copy:

SC in the case of ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax Officer

 

 

Get unlimited unrestricted access to thousands of insightful content at ConsultEase.
₹149
₹249
₹499
₹699
₹1199
₹1999
payu form placeholder


If you already have a premium membership, Sign In.
Profile photo of CA Shafaly Girdharwal CA Shafaly Girdharwal

CA

New Delhi, India

CA Shaifaly Girdharwal is a GST consultant, Author, Trainer and a famous You tuber. She has taken many seminars on various topics of GST. She is Partner at Ashu Dalmia & Associates and heading the Indirect Tax department. She has authored a book on GST published by Taxmann.

Discuss Now
Opinions & information presented by ConsultEase Members are their own.

WPX728x90