Minor discrepancies in invoices should not bar the claim for input tax credit, and the genuineness of the transaction and the claim can be proved from other evidence.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The present appeal arising out of the order dated 3.11.2011, passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 169 of 2011, was admitted for determination of the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of Input Tax Credit merely on the grounds of technicalities when the selling dealer has shown the sales made to the appellant in his return and has duly deposited the tax on those sales ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of Rule 54 are mandatory in nature ?”

2. The dispute is regarding claim of input tax credit for the period from 1.7.2009 to 31.3.2010.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the aforesaid period, the appellant purchased various consignments of non-alloy ingots of different quality. The seller of the goods is a unit covered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the 1944 Act'). The invoice-cumexcise gate pass admittedly depicted the description and price of the goods, excise duty and the sale tax charged. At the time of filing of return, the appellant claimed credit of the input tax paid at the time of purchase of the aforesaid material. As the refund was admissible to the appellant, the Assessing Authority issued notice for determination thereof. Though all the invoices and other documents were produced by the appellant before the Designated Authority, but still the claim of input tax credit on the material purchased from Sada Shiv Casting Pvt. Ltd. was rejected, vide order dated 6.9.2010. Aggrieved against the order so passed, the appellant preferred appeal, which was rejected by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala vide order dated 24.5.2011. Still further, the appellant failed in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. Impugning the action of the authorities in rejecting the claim for input tax credit on the material purchased from Sada Shiv Casting Pvt. Ltd., learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, 'the VAT Act') and Rules 18, 21(3) and 51 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules'), submitted that the entire information as provided for in the Rules was available in the invoices. Merely because on the original copy of the VAT invoice, the words “Input Tax Credit is available to a person against this copy” were not printed on the invoice will not debar the appellant from claiming input tax credit, as the same being highly technical, once sufficient material was produced in evidence before the competent authority to show that the seller had deposited the amount of tax collected from the appellant with the department. He further submitted that even submission of the tax invoice with the aforesaid words written thereon is also not a conclusive proof as the authority can still verify the claim. Meaning thereby the substance has to be seen and not merely the document. The appellant does not have any control over the kind of invoice issued by a selling dealer, hence, he cannot be penalised.

5. It was further submitted that input tax credit is available to a dealer even if VAT invoice is lost, destroyed or mutilated, as the claim can be made on production of other evidence. Claim is admissible in case the competent authority is satisfied. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed upon judgments of Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Ralson India Ltd., 2006(202) ELT 759 and Commissioner of C. Ex., Delhi-III, Gurgaon v. Myron Electricals Private Limited, 2007(207) ELT 664; GCR No. 5 of 1999—Commissioner of Central Excise,