IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 OT.Rev.No. 51 of 2010() ----------------------- (T.A. (VAT) NO. 283/2009 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EKM.) PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ASSESSEE -------------------------------------------------- SMT.SIBLE JOSEPH, M/S. PRIYA FOOD PACKERS, M.A. ROAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/REVENUE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI. MOHAMMED RAFEEQ THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.T. Rev. (VAT) No. 51 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining petitioner's prayer for direction to give input tax credit at full rate of tax, that is 12.5 per cent as against 4 per cent granted. The commodity namely prawns and chicken attracts tax at 12.5 per cent. By mistake the supplier appears to have charged only 4% and based on the bills produced, petitioner is granted credit of input tax only to the extent paid. However, petitioner's case is that supplier is assessed to tax at 12.5 per cent and therefore petitioner is entitled to input tax credit at the same rate. Strangely, petitioner has not been able to get debit note from the supplier for the differential tax in terms of proviso to Section 11(5) of the Act. We do not find anything wrong in the Tribunal declining to grant the relief because petitioner has not admittedly satisfied the condition in terms of above provision of the statute. It is for the petitioner to obtain and produce debit note or O.T. Rev. (VAT) No. 51/2010 2 declaration in terms of the statute from the supplier, if he gives it, before the assessing officer, for which purpose we grant one month's time to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.T. Revision is disposed of with direction to the assessing officer to reconsider the matter if the petitioner obtains and produces the required records within one month as above. However, if no document is produced within the time granted, ST Rev. will be treated as dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk O.T. Rev. (VAT) No. 51/2010 3