Thursday, November 26, 2015

SC draws distinction between exempted goods and exempted units for allowing input tax credit

CST & VAT: Rajasthan VAT-Assessee could claim input tax credit of raw material used in manufacturing of Asbestos Cement Sheets when assessee was specifically exempted from paying VAT due to exemption notification.

Facts:


a)  Assessee was manufacturing Asbestos Cement Pressure Pipes and Asbestos Cement Sheets (A.C. Sheets). It had availed input tax credit (ITC) on purchase of raw material used in manufacturing of A.C. Sheets.

b)  Revenue disallowed such ITC on the ground that no tax was required to be paid by assessee due to exemption notification. However, the assessee was of the view that it was only exempted to pay duty by virtue of notification and goods manufactured by it were not exempted goods. Therefore, it was correct in claiming ITC.

c)  The High Court held in favour of assessee.Aggrieved-department filed the instant appeal.


The Apex Court held in favour of assessee as under:



1)   It was perceivable that the High Court had proceeded on foundation that there was distinction between the exempted units and exempted sales. If said distinction would be overlooked, it might lead to serious error in construction and application of taxing provisions.

2)  There is no doubt that distinction has to be drawn between exempted goods, which means complete exemption for the specified goods, and when the goods are taxable goods, but a transaction or a person is granted exemption. 

3)  When goods are exempt, there would be no taxable transactions or exemption to a taxable person. In other cases, goods might be taxable, but exemption could be given in respect of a taxable event, i.e., exemption to specified transactions from liability of tax or exemption to a taxable person, though the goods are taxable. Exemption with reference to taxable events or taxable persons would not exempt the goods as such, for a subsequent transaction or when the goods are sold or purchased by a non-specified person, the subsequent transaction or the taxable person would be liable to pay tax.

4)  Therefore, the appellant though exempted from payment of tax, subsequent transactions of sale of asbestos cement sheets would be taxable. As a logical corollary it follows that the VAT would have to be paid on the taxable goods in a subsequent transaction by the purchasing dealer.

5)  The denial of credit to assessee would lead assessee to a disadvantageous position as if subsequent sale is made by non-exempted dealer then it would suffer tax on entire sale consideration. It would make its products uncompetitive in spite of exemption notification. Thus, assessee had correctly claimed ITC. - Commercial Taxes Officer v. A Infrastructure Ltd. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 307 (SC) 
Post a Comment