The Court observed that, When the statutory provision mandates compliance in a particular manner, it should be done in that particular way alone not by any other method.
The petitioners are the dealers registered under the provisions of the Act. The ITC claim of the petitioners based on Form VAT 240 has been rejected by the Authorities. The fulcrum of dispute in these matters revolves around the interpretation of Sections 10 and 10 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, 2003 in as much as the availment of ITC claim by the registered dealer based on the annual audit statement of accounts filed in Form VAT 240 notwithstanding no claim made in the return of turnover filed under Section 35 of the Act.
Justice S. Sujatha observed that all the registered dealers are not required to file such Form VAT 240 but only depending on the total turnover for the year, Form VAT 240 has to be filed. In cases where no such VAT 240 is filed, it would certainly result in discrimination if VAT 240 has to be accepted as the basis for determining the Input Tax Credit (ITC). VAT From 240 cannot replace the “return”.
While dismissing the writ petition Court also said that, When the statutory provision mandates compliance in a particular manner, it should be done in that particular way alone not by any other method. “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius” is the well-settled legal maxim followed by the Courts without any exception. Hence, the Court considered view that no input tax credit can be availed independent of the claim in the returns merely filing Form VAT 240.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment