Ald Automotive Pvt Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer And Ors Now ...

3. The appellant Company is a registered dealer under Tamil   Nadu   VAT   Act,   2006.   The   appellant   Company   is engaged   in   the   business   of   leasing   and   fleet management   of   the   motor   vehicles   and   resale   of   used motor vehicles. The head office of the Company is at Mumbai.   The   head   office   of   the   appellant   negotiates the   purchase   price   with   the   local   registered   dealers in   Tamil   Nadu   and   issues   the   purchase   order   to   the dealer   along   with   the   payment   including   the   tax 4 payable   under   the   Tamil   Nadu   VAT   Act,   2006.   The registered   dealer   raises   the   tax   invoice   as   and   when the   motor   vehicle   is   ready   for   delivery   to   the appellant. The date of purchase for the vehicle in the books   of   the   appellant   is   same   as   the   date   of delivery.   The   tax   invoices   of   such   purchases   are received   after   a   considerable   delay   as   the   original documents are sent to the Regional Transport Authority for   registration   of   motor   vehicles.   The   appellant enters   the   details   of   the   tax   invoice   containing   the payment of tax in its books of accounts. The appellant had   outsourced   the   job   of   collection   of   original   tax invoices to one M/s. MID Controls Private Limited, an Agency   specialised   for   collecting   documents.   The appellant is entitled to claim Input Tax Credit of the amount   of   tax   paid   on   the   purchases   made   from   the registered   dealer   of   motor   vehicle   as   per   Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006. As per Section 19(11), if a dealer has not claimed Input Tax Credit for a particular month, the dealer can claim the Input Tax   Credit     before   the   end   of   the   financial   year   or 5 before 90 days from the date of purchase whichever is later.   When   the   appellant   filed   its   returns   for   the assessment   year   2007­2008   for   want   of   the   tax invoices,   the   said   Input   Tax   Credit     could   not   be claimed. The appellant, however, filed revised returns claiming   Input   Tax   Credit   on   the   receipt   of   the   tax invoices from the dealer. The appellant also filed its monthly   returns   for   the   period   from   April,   2007   to February,   2008.   The   appellant   had   filed   a   monthly return   for   the   month   of   March,   2008   on   06.10.2008. There was delay in filing return. Due to late receipt of   original   purchase   invoices,   the   appellant   revised its   returns   for   the   period   from   March,   2008   to January, 2009 in the month of March, 2009.

5. We   may   also   notice   the   facts   of   another   Civil Appeal   No.   10503­10507   of   2018   arising   out   of   SLP(C) Nos.11319­11323 of 2014 (Sri Devi Enterprises vs. The Commercial Tax Officer & Anr.).

[PROVIDED   that   on   the   purchase   of   capital goods   which   are   used   in   the   manufacture   of exempted   goods   and   taxable   goods,   input   tax credit shall be allowed to the extent of its usage in  the manufacture  of taxable goods in 22 the manner prescribed.] (7) No registered dealer shall be entitled to input tax credit in respect of –

(8)   No   input   tax   credit   shall   be   allowed   to any goods purchased by him for sale but given away by him by way of free sample or gift or goods consumed for personal use.

(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 4

Such return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of tax:

47. The High Court had already granted liberty to writ petitioners   in   whose   cases   assessment   has   been finalized   to   file   statutory   appeal   and   objections which   substantially   protect   the   interest   of   the appellants 48

48. We, thus, do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court. All the appeals are dismissed.