Lumsum payment of tax schemes under Punjab VAT Act 2005

Section 8-A of Punjab VAT Act 2005 provides for lump sum schemes for such goods or class of goods or such persons subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by State Government. The provisions of section 8-A are applicable irrespective of anything contained contrary in the other Provisions of Punjab VAT Act.

As a result the Punjab Government has uptill now provided lump sum schemes for Dhaba Owners and for Brick Klin owners. But it is to be noted that these lump sum schemes are optional only. A dealer may or may not choose to pay under lump sum schemes.

Person opting to pay under lump sum schemes can not issue VAT invoice and any taxable person purchasing goods from such person is not entitled to claim any input tax credit. The person opting to pay tax under lump sum scheme is also not entitled to claim any input tax credit in respect of purchases made by him.

Once a person choose for lump sum scheme its not compulsory for him to presist with such lump sum scheme. The dealer can at any time cancel his such lump sum payment of tax option by making an application to the designated officer.The prescribed form is Form 6-A under PVAT Rules.

Download Lump sum scheme for Dhaba Owners

Some case laws: Lump sum tax on brick klins cannot be  enhanced retrospectively in the absense of any provision in the Act empowering the State Government in this behalf- Ram Gopal Murli Dhar Juntra Vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 16 STM 80 (HC-P&H)]

Even if Act provides that rules can be made retrospectively, Lumpsum tax on brick klins cannot be enhanced retrospectively. Conferment of exercise of power of giving retrospective effect in a subordinate legislation can be justified only if it is reasonable. Retrospective legislation may be justified if a provision is clarificatory or provision is for validiating an earlier levy which may have been struck down or for any such purpose which may be permissible. In absense thereof, mere fact that there is legislative competence to legislate retrospectively cannot by itself be enough to justify retrospective levy.- Goel Brick Industries V Radha Swami Brick Co. [(2011) 16 STM 82 (HC-P&H)]    

Share |


Post a Comment