Case Law
Subject : Tax Law - Indirect Tax
New Delhi – The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on tax law, has held that a dealer is not entitled to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods whose sale is exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the UTTAR PRADESH VALUE ADDED TAX ACT , 2008. A bench led by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed a civil appeal filed by a dealer, affirming that the specific prohibition in Section 13(7) of the Act overrides the general provisions for allowing ITC.
The case involved a registered dealer who, during the assessment year 2010-11, made sales amounting to ₹1.89 crore to a manufacturer-exporter. These sales were made against Form-E, rendering them exempt from tax under Section 7(c) of the UP VAT Act, as per government notifications aimed at promoting exports.
The dealer had claimed an Input Tax Credit of ₹6,42,260 on the purchase tax paid for these goods. While initially allowed, the assessing officer later reversed this credit, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Additional Commissioner, the Commercial Tax Tribunal, and the High Court. The dealer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Appellant's Contention:
The dealer argued that denying ITC was counterproductive to the state's policy of encouraging exports. Counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Respondent's Contention:
Representing the revenue department, Mr.
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the statutory framework of the UP VAT Act. The bench noted the "admitted circumstance" that the dealer's turnover fell squarely within the tax exemption provided by Section 7(c). The core issue was whether ITC could be claimed despite this exemption.
The judgment explained the legislative scheme: - Section 13(1) provides the general framework for allowing ITC. - Section 13(7) acts as a specific exception or prohibition.
The court highlighted the precise wording of Section 13(7)(ii), which states that no ITC shall be allowed where "sale of such goods by the dealer is exempt from payment of tax under clause (c) of section 7."
> "The prohibition from allowing input tax credit is a statutory mandate," the judgment noted. "In the teeth of clear expression in section 13(7) of the Act, we find it difficult to give effect to the intent or policy made known through notifications to grant input tax credit."
The bench concluded that the dealer, by availing the benefit of tax exemption under Section 7(c), was statutorily barred from claiming ITC on the corresponding purchases. The court found no legal infirmity in the decisions of the lower authorities and the High Court.
Dismissing the civil appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the Input Tax Credit. The ruling solidifies the principle that specific statutory prohibitions in tax law will override general benefit provisions, and that tax concessions must be claimed strictly in accordance with the letter of the law.
#InputTaxCredit #VAT #TaxLaw
Pune Court: Swatantryaveer Title Not Government-Conferred in Gandhi Case
10 Apr 2026
Supreme Court: Temple Exclusions Harm Hinduism
10 Apr 2026
Stranger Directly Affected by Interim Order Entitled to Impleadment in Writ Proceedings: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Dismissal from BSF Valid Without Security Force Court Trial if Inexpedient Due to Civilians Involved: Calcutta HC
10 Apr 2026
Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Runs From FIR Filing Date, Not Cognizance: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Higher DA Enhancement for Serving Employees Than DR for Pensioners Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
11 Apr 2026
Broad Daylight Murder of Senior Lawyer in Mirzapur
11 Apr 2026
SC Justice Amanullah: Don't Blame Judges for Pendency
11 Apr 2026
Varanasi Court Seeks Police Report on Kishwar Defamation
11 Apr 2026
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.