Page 108 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

26 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
right under Article 300A of the Constitution and cannot be taken away by pre-
scribing a time-limit for availing the same.
20. Now, let us also examine the case law relied upon by the Respond-
ents. We find that the judgments cited by Mr. Amit Bansal are distinguishable on
facts. In the case of ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (supra) ref-
erence was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg.
Co. (P) Ltd. v. CST, (1992) 3 SCC 624. The relevant portion of the judgment is ex-
tracted hereinbelow :
“34. The input credit is in the nature of benefit/concession extended to
the dealer under the statutory scheme. The concession can be received by
the beneficiary only as per the scheme of the statute. Reference is made to
the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. CST [Godrej
& Boyce Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. CST, (1992) 3 SCC 624]. Rules 41 and 42 of the
Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 provided for the set-off of purchase tax. This
Court held that the rule-making authority can provide curtailment while
extending the concession. In para 9 of the judgment, the following has been
laid down : (SCC pp. 631-32)
“9. In law (apart from Rules 41 and 41A) the appellant has no le-
gal right to claim set-off of the purchase tax paid by him on his pur-
chases within the State from out of the sales tax payable by him on
the sale of the goods manufactured by him. It is only by virtue of
the said Rules-which, as stated above, are conceived mainly in the
interest of public-that he is entitled to such set-off. It is really a con-
cession and an indulgence. More particularly, where the manufac-
tured goods are not sold within the State of Maharashtra but are
despatched to out-State branches and agents and sold there, no
sales tax can be or is levied by the State of Maharashtra. The State of
Maharashtra gets nothing in respect of such sales effected outside
the State. In respect of such sales, the rule-making authority could
well have denied the benefit of set-off. But it chose to be generous
and has extended the said benefit to such out-State sales as well,
subject, however to deduction of one per cent of the sale price of
such goods sent out of the State and sold there. We fail to under-
stand how a valid grievance can be made in respect of such deduc-
tion when the very extension of the benefit of set-off is itself a boon
or a concession. It was open to the rule-making authority to provide
for a small abridgement or curtailment while extending a conces-
sion. Viewed from this angle, the argument that providing for such
deduction amounts to levy of tax either on purchases of raw mate-
rial effected outside the State or on sale of manufactured goods ef-
fected outside the State of Maharashtra appears to be beside the
point and is unacceptable. So is the argument about apportioning
the sale-price with reference to the proportion in which raw materi-
al was purchased within and outside the State.” ”
In the said case, the appellant-company was a registered dealer under the Tamil
Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu VAT Act) who was engaged in
the business of leasing-management of the motor vehicles and resale of used mo-
tor vehicles. It claimed entitlement to input tax credit of the amount paid on the
purchases made from the registered dealer of motor vehicle as per Section 19(2)

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  108