JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in TIN 3323080006/2011-12, TIN 3323080006/2015-16, TIN 3323080006/2012-13, TIN 3323080006/2013-14 and TIN 3323080006/2014-15 respectively, quash the assessment order dated 08.06.2021 made therein.)

1. Pleadings are complete in the matter and both learned counsel would bring to the attention of this Court that the issue relating to reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on invisible loss, in terms of Section 19(9)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘Act’) occasioned during the process of manufacture of Ghee, is covered by earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Rupa and Co. Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai (324 ELT 295) applied in the context of Commercial Taxes in A.R.S. Steels and Alloy International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State Tax Officer, Chennai (W.P.Nos.2885 of 2020 and batch) dated 24.06.2021 and Saradhambika Paper and Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State Tax Officer, Gobichettypalayam and Another (W.P.Nos.590 of 2021 and batch) dated 30.06.2021. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.Nos.2885 of 2020 and batch is extracted below:

‘This batch of Writ Petitions relates to two sets of assessment orders passed in the case of two assessees under the provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘GST Act’) for the periods 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. They are disposed by way of this common order, since the legal issue that arises in these cases is one and the same.

2. In W.P.No.3936 of 2020, it is argued by Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the petitioner that an additional issue is raised in regard to stock reconciliation. The admitted position as far as this issue is concerned is that the vehicle movement register correlating to the vehicle gate passes issued, have been specifically sought for by the authorities but not produced at the time of assessment. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the details have produced before this Court, learned counsel for the respondent would point out that this issue is factual in nature and as such, it would be better that the petitioner approach the appellate authority by way of a statutory appeal.

3. I agree, Since the evidences in support of the petitioner’s stand have been produced only at this stage, it would be appropriate that this issue should be dealt with by the departmental authorities at the first instance. The petitioner is permitted to file a statutory appeal as regards this issue within a period of four weeks (4) from today.

4. As far as W.P.Nos.2885, 2888 and 2890 of 2020 are concerned, Mr.Mudimannan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the legal issue raised in these Writ Petitions, statutory appeals have been filed with regard to the other issues.

5. This order is thus confined to a decision on the legal issue as to whether a reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) is contemplated in relation to loss arising from manufacturing process.

6. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of MS Billets and Ingots. MS scrap is an input in the manufacture of MS Billets and the latter, in turn, constitutes an input for manufacture of TMT/CTD Bars. There is a loss of a small portion of the inputs, inherent to the manufacturing process. The impugned orders seek to reverse a portion of the ITC claimed by the petitioners, proportionate to the loss of the input, referring to the provisions of Section 17(5)(h) of the GST Act.

7. As regards the Legislative history of this provision, the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘TNVAT Act’) contained an equivalent provision in Section 19 thereof, which deals with various situations arising from the grant and reversal of ITC. Section 19 (1) grants eligibility to ITC of the amount of tax paid under the TNVAT Act by a registered dealer. It sets out situations where such