SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1012

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
M/s. TVS Motor Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 10560-10564, 10566, 10567, 10565 & 10568 of 2018 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9320-9324, 9325, 10579, 9326 25434 of 2015] Civil Appeal No. 10576 of 2018 [@ SLP(C) No. 28105 of 2018] [@SLP(C)…..CC No. 14354 of 2016] & Civil Appeal No. 10569 of 2018 [@SLP(C) No. 2905 of 2018]
Decided On : 12-10-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 are not unconstitutional.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a form of concession, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
In cases where a dealer makes sales exclusively to the other State Government(s), benefit of ITC would be allowed without insisting on the furnishing of Form ‘C’. However, in order to avail this benefit, a certificate from said the State Government to whom the supplies are made would be obtained by the dealer claiming ITC and submitted to the VAT authorities.

Headnote:(a) Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 – Section 19(5)(c) and Rule 10(9)(a), TNVAT Rules, 2007 – Validity – Not ultra vires sections Section 2(b), 2(g) and 8(2), CST Act – Input Tax Credit (ITC) – A form of concession – Cannot be claimed as a matter of right – State of Tamil Nadu not having any mechanism to prevent invasion of tax and loss of revenue cost by trade with unregistered dealers in State of Tamil Nadu – Held, provision aimed at achieving a specific and justified purpose – Not discriminatory. (Para 27, 29, 30, 41, 42, 43)

       AIR 1969 SC 147 (CB) : 1968 SCR (3) 829; (1974) 33 STC 200 (SC) : 1974 AIR SC 1505 : (1974) 4 SCC 408; (1974) 4 SCC 98; (2016) 15 SCC 125; SLP (Civil) Nos.36112-36113 of 2013 – Relied upon

       (1974) 2 SCC 777; (1979) 2 SCC 529; (1983) 1 SCC 305; (2015) 10 SCC 681; (2007) 6 SCC 624; AIR 1962 SC 1006; (1881) 8 QBD 63 607; AIR 1961 SC 552; (1970) 2 SCC 820 : (1971) 2 SCR 92; (1981) 4 SCC 675; AIR 1963 SC 553 : (1963) 3 SCR 858; AIR 1931 PC 149 : 132 IC 748 : LR 58 IA 259; (2001) 7 SCC 545; AIR 1954 SC 545 : (1955) 1 SCR 448; AIR 1955 SC 13 : (1955) 1 SCR 787; AIR 1966 SC 1995 : 1966 Supp SCR 259 : (1966) 2 LLJ 759 – Referred

       1985 (Supp) SCC 205 – Distinguished

       (b) Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 – Section 2(15) and 38, and Section 19(5)(c) – State Governments exempted from registering as Dealer – Dealers are not able to get Form ‘C’ from State Governments – Being denied benefit of ITC even though genuineness of sale cannot be denied ruling out tax evasion – Section 19(5)(c), therefore, needs to be read down – Held, in cases where a dealer makes sales exclusively to the other State Government(s), benefit of ITC would be allowed without insisting on the furnishing of Form ‘C’ – However, in order to avail this benefit, a certificate from said the State Government to whom the supplies are made would be obtained by the dealer claiming ITC and submitted to the VAT authorities. (Para 48, 49)

       Facts of the case:

       The issues involved in the present appeals are: whether Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, Act No. 32/2006 and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 are ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 256 and 301 of the Constitution of India as also the Central Sales Tax Act and whether Notice dated August 16, 2018 of the Revenue is liable to be quashed?

       After the Assessment was completed for the appellants for Assessment Year 2007-08, they received Show Cause Notices from the Revenue in and around 2013, proposing to reverse the ITC claimed made by them on the ground that they had not filed the Declaration Form C for the purpose of availing the concessional rate of tax. The appellants paid the differential tax arising out of the Assessment order for 2007-08 as well as the amount relating to proportionate ITC under process.

       On 16th August, 2013, the Revenue issued Impugned Notice in TIN 33450460109/2007-08 proposing to deny the ITC credit availed against the transactions for which Form C were not filled, and reversing credit on inter-State sales without Forms C in terms of the impugned Section 19(1)(c).

       The appellants, who were Assessees under the TNVAT Act, preferred writ petitions challenging the constitutional vires of 19(5)(c) of the TNVAT Act and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Rules.

       The High Court, vide the Impugned Judgment-I and II has dismissed the writ petitions thereby upholding the constitutional vires of Section 19(5)(c) of the TNVAT Act and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Rules.

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 are not unconstitutional.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

Leave granted.

2. This group of eleven appeals was heard together and is being disposed of by this common judgment as identical issues are involved in all these appeals.

3. At the outset, the issues involved in the present appeals are: whether Section 19(5)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, Act No. 32/2006 (hereinafter referred to as “TNVAT Act”) and Rule 10(9)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) are ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 256 and 301 of the Constitution of India as also the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “CST Act”) and whether Notice dated August 16, 2018 of the Revenue is liable to be quashed?

4. The instant appeals have been preferred against the common impugned judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated October 29, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment I”) in the writ petitions which were filed by the appellants and the impugned judgment dated 17th November, 2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment II”) in W.P. No. 29393 of 2017.

5. The brief facts leading to the cases are as follows:

6. All the appellants herein are the Assessees under the TNVAT Act and are duly registered on the file of their respective Jurisdictional Commercial Officers.

7. On January 17, 2005, a White Paper was released by the Committee of Finance Ministers (hereinafter referred to as “White Paper”), making it clear that Input Tax Credit (hereinafter “ITC”) would be available to set-off against tax liability on all intra-state and inter-state sales. Paragraph 2.3 of the same states as follows:

“Coverage of Set-Off / Input Tax Credit

2.3 This input tax credit will be given for both manufacturers and traders for purchase of inputs/supplies meant for both sale within the State as well as to other States, irrespective of when these will be utilised/sold. This also reduces immediate tax liability.

Even for stock transfer/consignment sale of goods out of the State, input tax paid in excess of 4% will be eligible for tax credit.”

8. Thereafter, on December 15, 2006, the TNVAT Act was enacted under List II, Entry 54 of the Constitution of India and notified in the Official Gazette after receiving assent of the Governor (on December 14, 2006), to consolidate and amend the law relating to the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods in the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 19(5)(c) of the same read as follows:

“No input tax credit shall be allowed on the purchase of goods sold as such or used in the manufacture of other goods and sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce falling under sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (Central Act 74 of 1956).”

9. Thereafter, on January 01, 2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in exercise of its powers under Section 80(1) of the TNVAT Act, notified the Rules vide Notification No. SROA-(ai1)/2007 G.O.M.S. No. 1. Rule 10(9)(a) of the same states as follows:

“Input tax credit on inter-state sales shall be allowed only if Form C prescribed in the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 is filed.”

10. After the Assessment was completed for the appellants for Assessment Year 2007-08, they received Show Cause Notices from the Revenue in and around 2013, proposing to reverse the ITC claimed made by them on the ground that they had not filed the Declaration Form C for the purpose of availing the concessional rate of tax. The appellants paid the differential tax arising out of the Assessment order for 2007-08 as well as the amount relating to proportionate ITC under process.

11. Consequently, on 16th August, 2013, the Revenue issued Impugned Notice in TIN 33450460109/2007-08 proposing to deny the ITC credit availed against the transactions for which Form C were not filled, and reversing credit on in





























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top