1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR 1. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.110 OF 2013, BHARATPUR M/S. BHAGWATI BUILDING MATERIAL STORE, KAMA, BHARATPUR 2. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.111 OF 2013 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE-B, COMMERCIAL TAXES, BHARATPUR M/S. GOPLIA CEMENT AGENCIES, CIRCULAR ROAD, BHARATPUR 3. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.112 OF 2013, BHARATPUR M/S. PAWAN CEMENT AGENCIES, KAMA, BHARATPUR 4. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.114 OF 2013 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE-B, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, BHARATPUR M/S. VAIBHAV TYRES, RANJEET NAGAR, BHARATPUR 5. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.122 OF 2013 CTO, CIRCLE-A, ALWAR M/S. R.S. TYRE HOUSE, TRANSPORT NAGAR, ALWAR 6. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.43 OF 2014 M/S. SHRI GOPAL CEMENT AGENCY, KAMA, BHARATPUR 7. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.44 OF 2014 CTO, CIRCLE-A, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ALWAR M/S. GARG OIL AND PAINT COMPANY, ALWAR 8. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.45 OF 2014 ACTO, WARD-FIRST, CIRCLE-B, COMMERCIAL TAXES M/S. PODDAR PAINT HOUSE, GOVERDHAN GATE, BHARATPUR.
9. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.46 OF 2014 M/S. ASHOKA ENTERPRISES, EXHIBITION ROAD, BHARATPUR 2 10. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.47 OF 2014 CTO, CIRCLE-B, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, BHARATPUR M/S. VAIBHAV TYRES, RANJEET NAGAR, BHARATPUR. 11. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.48 OF 2014 M/S. PRADEEP ELECTRONICS, BHARATPUR. 12. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.49 OF 2014 M/S. KISHORE SHYAM BRIJESH KUMAR, NEEMDAGATE, BHARATPUR 13. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.95 OF 2014, BHARATPUR M/S. VAISHALI TRADING COMPANY, KAMA, BHARATPUR 14. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.116 OF 2014 CTO, CIRCLE-A, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALWAR M/S. SHUBHAM PAINT HOUSE, 14, VIJAY COMPLEX, ROAD NO.2, ALWAR 15. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.122 OF 2014 M/S. NEELKANTH TYRES EXHIBITION, BHARATPUR. 16. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.125 OF 2014 CTO, CIRCLE-A, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, BHARATPUR M/S. BHIKARWAR CEMENT AGENCY, HARIDAS ROAD, BHARATPUR. 17. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.127 OF 2014, BHARATPUR
3 M/S. MITTAL CEMENT HOUSE, NEAR HEERA DAS BUS STAND, BHARATPUR 18. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.130 OF 2014 ACTO, WARD-I, CIRCLE-A, COMMERCIAL TAXES, BHARATPUR M/S. GAURAV TYRES, KUMHER GATE, BHARATPUR Date of Order : 17 th September, 2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA MS. TANVI SAHAI } MS. MEENAL SAHAI } for MR. RB MATHUR counsel for petitioner MR. DEVENDRA KUMAR with MR. DINESH KUMAR } MR. DEEPAK GOYAL } counsel for respondents ORDER ----- 1. In all these petitions a common question has been raised about the Input Tax Credit (ITC) which was claimed by the assessee on the basis of VAT invoice. The respondent-assessees are carrying on separate business but they sold the goods at a rate lower than the price shown in the VAT invoice keeping in view the discount/incentive received by them from the respective dealers. 2. While the Assessing Officer disallowed the ITC and it was the contention of Revenue that the assessee cannot sell the goods lower than what is shown in the VAT invoice of purchase and simultaneously to claim ITC as per the invoice. However, both the Appellate Authorities have come to a finding that the claim of assessee was just and proper and ITC as claimed was
4 allowable which has been assailed by the Revenue in all these petitions. Since common question has been raised, therefore, all the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. At the outset learned counsel for the assessees has brought to the notice of this court that the self same question has come up before this court on several occasions and this court has held that ITC is allowable as per the VAT invoice irrespective of sale value. 4. Learned counsel for the assessees relied upon a judgment in the case of CTO v. M/s. Hinger Traders [S.B. Civil (VAT) Revision No.160/2012] wherein coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat vide judgment dated 16.9.2013 dismissed the petition of Revenue. It is further contended that the Revenue sought to challenge the said judgment of this court before the apex court and the apex court dismissed the SLP vide order and judgment dated 24.3.2014 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC 4413/2014. It has also been brought to the notice of the court that this court in the case of CTO v. M/s Sharda Agencies [S.B. STR No.70/2014] vide judgment dated 6.2.2015 and also this court in the case of CTO v. Narendra Kumar Govind Prasad [STR No.65/2014] vide judgment dated 19.1.2015 has taken consistent view and has upheld the claim of assessee and contended that the issue is squarely covered. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Revenue tried to distinguish the judgments of this court and
5 also contended that mere dismissal of the SLP does not mean that the claim of Revenue has been rejected. She also relied upon judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2010) 32 VST 350 (Ker), wherein ITC was not held allowable by the Kerala High Court, on the same issue. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. In my view, once this Court has already taken a view on the self same controversy by various judgments referred to hereinbefore, and particularly when SLP has been dismissed by the apex court, this court is not inclined to take a different view than what has already been taken, particularly when no distinguishing feature has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Merely because the Kerala High Court has taken a different view, is no good reason to come to a different conclusion. 8. Accordingly, I am inclined to follow the view already settled by this court in the various judgments referred to hereinbefore, and I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned of the Tax Board. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. (JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA) db 10-27