IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
M/s Roshan Motors Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Deptt. & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference Nos. 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227 of 2020
Decided On : 17-01-2024
Sales Tax - Subsidy - RVAT Act-2003 - Section 18(3A)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the question of whether targeted discounts/rebates received on the purchase of vehicles can be considered as subsidy under Section 18(3a) of RVAT Act-2003 and whether the provisions of Section 18(3A) of RVAT Act-2003 can be shifted on the transactions of purchases.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the assessee was not entitled to avail the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the entire purchase value when the goods were sold at a discounted price. The court interpreted Section 18(3A) of the RVAT Act and held that the benefit of ITC can only be availed to the extent of the output tax payable upon said goods. The court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18(3A) and found that the case of the assessee fell within the four corners of the provision. The court also found that there was no deliberate attempt to evade tax and set aside the penalty imposed by the revenue.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 18(3A) of RVAT Act-2003 and the entitlement of the assessee to avail the benefit of ITC for goods sold at a discounted price, as well as the imposition of penalty under Section 61(2)(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 18(3A) of the RVAT Act and held that the benefit of ITC can only be availed to the extent of the output tax payable upon said goods. The court also upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18(3A) and found that the case of the assessee fell within the four corners of the provision. The court also found that there was no deliberate attempt to evade tax and set aside the penalty imposed by the revenue.
Final Decision: The questions of law in STR Nos. 222-224/2020, preferred by the assessee, were answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Conversely, the questions of law in STR Nos. 225-227/2020, preferred by the revenue, were answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, all these STRs were dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present Sales Tax Revisions / References (for short "STRs"), filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short "RVAT Act") being aggrieved of the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short “RTB”), were admitted on following questions of law :
“1. Whether targeted discounts/rebates (off Take Discount and Early Bird Off Take Discount) received on purchase of vehicles can be considered as subsidy under Section 18(3a) of RVAT Act-2003?
2. Whether provisions of Section 18(3A) of RVAT Act-2003 can be shifted on the transactions of purchases?”
In STR Nos. 225-227/2020, preferred by the revenue :
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law and has not acted perversely in confirming the order of appellate authority deleting the penalty under Section 61(2)(b) of the Act when the fact of availing wrongful ITC has been not dispute?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case of Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in treating the provisions of Section 61(2)(b) as per Section 61(1) of the Act and deleting the penalty not appreciating that the provision of the Section 61(2) are independent and the provision starts with non obstante clause?”
Since the issue involved is common, with the consent of the parties, all these STRs were heard together and are now being decided by way of this common order.
SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE
2. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is a registered dealer under the provisions of RVAT Act dealing in automobiles and having dealership agreement of automobile manufacturing company Tata Motors Limited (for short “TML”). The vehicles purchased by the assessee from TML are as per various targeted schemes provided from time to time by the supplier company, i.e. TML. TML allows the benefit in the shape of discounts/rebates, e.g. ‘Off Take Discount’, ‘Early Bird Off Take Discount’ from basic purchase value providing book adjustment entries in the party ledger account. IN other words, the payments required to be made to TML are shortly made by the assessee. The tax charged by TML at the time of effecting sales to the assessee do not change its nature and whatever tax is charged in the tax invoices by the supplier company (TML) is paid to the State Treasury without having any relation with the targeted discounts/rebates. The revenue has made out a case of reversal of input tax credit (for short “ITC”) as per provisions of Section 18(3A) of the RVAT Act whereby the sales of the vehicles have been considered as sold on lesser price in comparison to purchase price. Therefore, treating them as sales of vehicles at subsidized rates, the assessee has been held responsible to reverse the ITC claimed as per Tax Account reflected in their books of accounts. Vide the impugned assessment order dated 06.12.2016, the revenue converted the discounts/rebates into subsidized sales and thereafter created demand of reversal of ITC with levy of interest and further imposition of penalty. Upon appeal, the appellate authority, vide order dated 17.02.2017, confirmed the reversal of tax and interest but set aside the penalty. The RTB, vide its order dated 03.03.2020, also confirmed the order of the appellate authority without properly appreciating the position of law and material on record. Being aggrieved, the present STRs are filed.
3. The primary contention of learned counsel for the assessee is that Section 18(3A) has wrongly being invoked and has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In support of this contention, learned counsel made the following submissions:
3.1. The first submission of learned counsel for the assessee is that while granting benefit of discount/rebates, the supplier company did not change the status of the tax account and without passing any benefit of tax component. The benefit has been gran
Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Maya Appliances (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd.
Jayam and Co. vs. Assistant Commissioner and Ors.
ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. vs. CTO
State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd.
Union of India and Ors. vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Ors.
The UP VAT Act permits input tax credit for both taxable goods and by-products, emphasizing strict interpretation of tax statutes and legislative intent.
A registered dealer under the VAT Act is deemed to have discontinued business upon the introduction of the GST Act, requiring the reversal of unutilized ITC as per the Act's provisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between exempted goods and exempted transactions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the inapplicability of Section....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.