Find a Lawyer

versus

Sections 2 (25), 7 and 46 appeal of the appellate tribunal input tax credit, the claim of the appellant's claim for input tax credit was rejected by the additional collector (judiciary) on the ground that the appellant was a wholesaler. Registered as, while it is actually providing manufacturing / machinery and input tax credit services were claimed by the appellant against those purchases which were different from those shown in the output tax invoices. As per the order of the Additional Collector, it was retained by the Collector, the appellant filed an appeal. It was an engineering hassle that involved the manufacture of machinery and its installation against supply / installation, which was legally registered with the Sales Tax Department under section 2 (25) of the Sales Tax Act 1990, arguing. During this period, a copy of its application for registration is kept on the record, showing the appellant's business activity as well as that of the wholesaler, engaged in the manufacture of goods under which the registration certificate issued by the department is only It was for the wholesalers that their business was legally subject to the provisions of Section 2 (25) of the Sales Tax Act. Was registered with the Sales Tax Department. 1990, and it was entitled that, in addition to the input tax credit under Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act 1990, the copy of the registration request by the appellant's lawyer shows that when applying for registration, Appellant identifies his / her core business activities. As the manufacturer is engaged in fabricated business, but the department registers it as a wholesaler appellant, in the circumstances for input tax credit famous lower court advocate from Kotla lawyer