Case: ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ORS NOW UPGRADED AS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

the main object of the statute. The interpretation of the Rule 9(j) in the above case was on its own statutory scheme and has no bearing in the present case. We, thus, are of the view that time period as provided in Section 19(11) is mandatory. Issue no. 5 43. One of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant was that appellant assessee had valid explanation for not claiming Input Tax Credit within the time provided under Section 19(11), hence, the authority had jurisdiction to extend the time. It is submitted that time period as contained in Section 19(11) is not akin to the law of limitation. We have already found that expression ?shall? occurring in Section 19(11) is mandatory whose compliance is necessary for claiming Input Tax Credit. The appellant has placed reliance on judgment of this Court reported in Surinder Singh versus Central Government and Others, 1986 (4) SCC 667. Learned Counsel submits that in the above case Central Government which was exercising authority under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was held to be entitled to extend the time which was required for depositing the auction amount. In the above case, the officials of the Central Government were exercising Revisional Jurisdiction as conferred under Section 33 of the Act to the Central Government. Facts of the case were noticed in paragraph 9 to the following effect: - ?9. The second question relates to the validity of the order of Shri Rajni Kant the officer to whom power under Section 33 was delegated, extending time to enable the appellant to deposit the auction-sale money. Shri Rajni Kant by his order dated February 6, 1970 exercising the delegated powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act set aside the order cancelling the auction- sale held in August 1959 and permitted the appellant to deposit the balance of the purchase money within fifteen days from the date of the order with a default clause that on his failure his petition would stand dismissed. In accordance with that order appellant was entitled to deposit the money till February 21, 1970. It appears that on appellant?s request the office prepared a challan which was valid up to February 20, 1970. The appellant went to the State Bank on February 20, 1970 to make the deposit but due to rush he could not make the deposit. On his application Shri Rajni Kant extended the time permitting the deposit by February 28, 1970 as a result of which a fresh challan was prepared which was valid up to February 28, 1970 and within that period appellant deposited the balance purchase money………? 44. Section 33 has been extracted in paragraph 10 of the judgment which is to the following effect: - ?10. Section 33 reads as under: ?Certain residuary powers of Central Government. —The Central Government may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act or the rules made thereunder.? 45. This Court in the above case held that the officer was exercising power of Central Government under Section 33 and had ample jurisdiction to set aside the Orders of the sub-ordinate authorities canceling the order and to permit the appellant to deposit the balance amount of the purchase money. Following observations while examining the power given under Section 33 had been made: ?11. The power conferred upon the Central Government under this provision is a residuary power in nature as the title of the section itself indicates. By enacting this section Parliament has conferred wide powers on the Central Government to call for the record of any case and to pass any order which it may think fit in the circumstances of the case. The only limitation on exercise of this power is that the Central Government shall not pass any order which may be inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Therefore, the Central Government or the delegated authority has power to set aside any order of the subordinate authorities, or to issue directions which it may consider necessary on the facts of a case subject to the aforesaid rider. This power is intended to be used to do justice and to mitigate hardship to a party unriddled by technicalities. Shri Rajni Kant while exercising powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act had ample jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the subordinate authorities cancelling the auction held on August 24, 1959 and to permit the appellant to deposit the balance amount of the purchase money and he further had jurisdiction to extend the time initially granted by him. Extension of time to enable the appellant to deposit the money did not amount to review of the earlier order dated February 6, 1970 ? 46. The above case was thus on its own facts, this Court held that in exercise of residuary power of Central Government, it had jurisdiction to pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances in the case require. In the scheme of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there is no power conferred on any authority under the Act to dilute the mandatory requirement under Section 19(11). The taxing statute has to be strictly construed. Nothing is to be read in, noting is to be implied and language used in taxing statute had to be looked into fairly. The benefits envisaged in the taxing statute had to be extended as per the restrictions and conditions envisaged therein. The statute having not given any indication for extension of time which is a condition for claiming Input Tax Credit, the submission that period could have been extended by assessing authority is unfounded and cannot be accepted. Issue number 5 is answered accordingly.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]27. The ground on which Rule 6 was held as ultra vires has been clearly noticed by this Court in paragraph 6 as noticed above. It is relevant to notice that in the same paragraph this Court had noticed Section 13(4)(g) of the Act where the State was empowered to make rule with regard to the time. Thus, this Court noticed the contradiction in phraseology of Section 8 sub-Section (4) and Section 13 sub-section (4) and held that non-mention of time in Section 8(4) is for clearly denying the rule making power to make any rule pertaining to the time. Thus, the above case has no bearing in the present controversy, since, in the present case the time period is prescribed in Section 19(11) itself which is a part of the Act and has to be read with Section 3 sub-section (3).The above case also does not come to help the appellant in the present appeal. In the above case there was no case that manufacturer does not fulfill any essential eligibility to obtain MODVAT credit on the additional duty paid by the manufacturer. The amendment which was made effective w.e.f. 15.04.2017 providing availability of MODVAT credit on additional duty paid was held to be clarificatory, hence, did not affect the right of MODVAT credit. The above case was thus on its own facts.The Constitutional validity of Section 19(20) was upheld. The above decision is a clear authority with proposition that Input Tax Credit is admissible only as per conditions enumerated under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2016. The interpretation put up by this Court on Section 3(2) and 3(3) and Section 19(2) is fully attracted while considering the same provisions of Section 3(2) and 3(3) and provision of Section 19(11) of the Act. The Statutory scheme delineated by Section 19(11) neither can be said to be arbitrary nor can be said to violate the right guaranteed to the dealer under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. We thus do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court upholding the validity of Section 19(11) of the Act. Both the issues are answered accordingly.Issue Number 3 and 4The alternative submission pressed by learned Counsel for the appellant was that Section 19(11) cannot be held to be mandatory and it is only a directory provision, non-compliance of which cannot be ground of denial of Input Tax Credit to the appellant. The conditions under which Input Tax Credit is to be given are all enumerated in Section 19 as noticed above. The condition under which the concession and benefit is given is always to be strictly construed. In event, it is accepted that there is no time period for claiming Input Tax Credit as contained in Section 19(11), the provision become too flexible and give rise to large number of difficulties including difficulty in verification of claim of Input Credit. Taxing Statutes contains self-contained scheme of levy, computation and collection of tax. The time under which a return is to be filed for purpose of assessment of the tax cannot be dependent on the will of a dealer. The use of word ‘shall? in Section 19(11) does not admit to any other interpretation except that the submission of Input claimed cannot be beyond the time prescribed. Section 19(11), in fact, gives additional time period for claim of Input Credit. The Statutory scheme contemplates filing of the timely return before 20th of the succeeding month.Section 19(11) thus allowed an extended period for Input Credit which if not claimed in any month can be claimed before the end of the financial year or before the 90 days from the date of purchase whichever is later. The provision of Section 19(11) is thus an additional benefit given to dealer for claiming Input Credit in extended period. The use of word ?shall make the claim? needs no other interpretation.This Court in the above case clearly laid down that whether particular provision is mandatory or directory has to be determined on the basis of object of particular provision and design of the statute. The period of 10 days in submitting the report of the public analyst was held to be directory for the reason that on the negligence of those to whom public duties are entrusted no one should suffer. Such interpretation should not be put which may promote the public mischief and cause public inconvenience and defeat the main object of the statute. The interpretation of the Rule 9(j) in the above case was on its own statutory scheme and has no bearing in the present case. We, thus, are of the view that time period as provided in Section 19(11) is mandatory.Issue no. 5the above case, the officials of the Central Government were exercising Revisional Jurisdiction as conferred under Section 33 of the Act to the Central Government.This Court in the above case held that the officer was exercising power of Central Government under Section 33 and had ample jurisdiction to set aside the Orders of the sub-ordinate authorities canceling the order and to permit the appellant to deposit the balance amount of the purchase money.The above case was thus on its own facts, this Court held that in exercise of residuary power of Central Government, it had jurisdiction to pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances in the case require. In the scheme of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, there is no power conferred on any authority under the Act to dilute the mandatory requirement under Section 19(11). The taxing statute has to be strictly construed. Nothing is to be read in, noting is to be implied and language used in taxing statute had to be looked into fairly. The benefits envisaged in the taxing statute had to be extended as per the restrictions and conditions envisaged therein. The statute having not given any indication for extension of time which is a condition for claiming Input Tax Credit, the submission that period could have been extended by assessing authority is unfounded and cannot be accepted. Issue number 5 is answered accordingly.