Susheee Infra (P) Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer and Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.—With the consent of both Sri S. Suri Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J. Anil Kumar, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. While the relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct respondent No. 1 to carry forward the excess Input Tax Credit of Rs. 1,29,82,506/- in terms of monthly return in Form Vat-200 for the month of May, 2014, consequential relief is also sought to adjust the excess Input Tax Credit, pursuant to the monthly return filed in Form Vat-200 for the month of May, 2014, towards payment of arrears of taxes due, and for future taxes.

Sri S. Suri Babu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that the petitioner does not press for the consequential relief of adjustment of the Input Tax Credit towards arrears of tax for the earlier period.

While the monthly tax returns filed by the petitioner for the month of May, 2014 showed an excess Input Tax Credit of Rs. 1,29,82,506/-, the respondents had made the excess input tax credit as "zero" in the petitioner''s monthly return of July, 2014 without an assessment order being passed, and without even giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Sri J. Anil Kumar, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, would submit that the mere fact that the petitioner has claimed Input Tax Credit would not mean that he is entitled thereto; the assessing authority is entitled to assess the petitioner, and determine the actual input tax credit which he is entitled to; and it is in view of the State being bifurcated from 02.06.2014 onwards, was the figure, in the monthly returns representing Input Tax Credit, treated as zero.

The fact remains that the petitioner, in their monthly returns of May, 2014, claim to have an excess Input Tax Credit of Rs. 1,29,82,506/-. This figure, in the absence of such excess input tax credit being adjusted against the tax payable by the petitioner could not have been treated as "zero" by the Department without even an assessment order being passed, and without determining the actual excess Input Tax Credit available to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is, therefore, directed to include the excess Input Tax Credit of Rs. 1,29,82,506/-, as claimed by the petitioner in the monthly returns for the month of May, 2014, in the subsequent monthly returns. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude respondent No. 1 from assessing the petitioner to tax under the Act after giving them an opportunity of being heard; and, thereafter, determine the actual excess Input Tax Credit entitlement of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.