CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2014) 04 MP CK 0081

Jindal Agro Oils vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 10 April 2014 · Citation: (2014) 72 VST 141

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shantanu Kemkar, J · J.K. Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
V.A.T. Appeal No. 15 of 2013
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 379 words

1 Heard on I.A. No. 2969 of 2014, an application seeking disposal of this appeal in the light of the order dated March 3, 2014 passed in VAT Appeal No. 8 of 2013 by Division Bench at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Shreeram Agro Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Indore See (2014) 72 VST 139 (M.P.). The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Principal Seat at Jabalpur placing reliance on the judgment passed by Division Bench at Gwalior in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and Others, has answered the question in favour of the appellant-assessee and the order impugned in VATA No. 08 of 2013 has been quashed. He submits that this appeal also raises identical question and challenges the same impugned common order, which has been quashed in VAT Appeal No. 8 of 2013.

2.

The aforesaid position is not disputed by learned panel lawyer for the respondent.

3.

In this appeal following question has been raised:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the disallowance of the appellant''s claim for input-tax rebate u/s 14 of the Madhya Pradesh VAT Act, 2002 in respect of the inputs tax paid on the cotton seeds purchased for manufacture of cotton seed oil from cotton seeds proportionately to the extent of generation and sale of the by-product oil-cake is proper and whether the interpretation of section 14 made by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board is correct?

4.

Having gone through the order passed by the Division Bench at Jabalpur as also at Gwalior, we are of the view that the question, which is involved in this appeal has already been answered in favour of the appellant-assessee.

5.

In the circumstances, we allow this appeal in terms of the order dated March 3, 2014 passed in VATA No. 8 of 2013 See (2014) 72 VST 139 (M.P.), by holding that the appellant-assessee is entitled to get the benefit of set-off/input tax paid on the entire amount of tax paid on purchase of raw material and the principle of proportionate liability cannot be invoked.

6.

The appellant shall be entitled for refund of the tax, in accordance with law, within six months. C.c. within three days.