IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Manager (Finance), V.Kasi Viswanathan – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner (ST) – IV – Respondent
W.P.Nos.21666 & 21672 of 2019 & WMP.Nos.20886 & 20889 of 2019
Decided on : 04-01-2023
Writ Petitions - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 30, Section 19(5)(a) - The court discussed the applicability of Section 19(5)(a) to the exemption granted under Section 30 of the Act. The court analyzed the legal provisions and their interpretations, distinguishing between exempted goods and exempted transactions. The court also considered the judgments in Commercial Taxes Officer v. A Infrastructure Limited and The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K.Kandaswami and others to interpret the legal provisions and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the reversal of Input tax credit (ITC) under Section 19(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The petitioner had purchased furnace oil and availed the benefit of exemptions granted under Section 30 of the Act. The respondent proposed to reverse the ITC for the period 2011-12 to 2012-13, leading to the filing of the writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the reversal of ITC under Section 19(5)(a) was not applicable to the transactions involving sales to a specified class of persons and a specified class of goods, as provided under Section 30(1)(c) of the Act. The court also held that the impugned proceedings for rectification under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act were not maintainable as they did not involve an error apparent on record.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Section 19(5)(a) in relation to the exemptions granted under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the applicability of Section 84 for rectification of an apparent error on record.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions, distinguishing between exempted goods and exempted transactions, and the inapplicability of Section 84 for rectification in the absence of an apparent error on record.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petitions, directing the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose A.P.No.172 of 2016 in line with the court's observations and conclusions. No costs were awarded.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in TIN/33270460111/2011-12 and TIN/33270460111/2012-13, both dated 24.06.2019 quashing the same.
The petitioner in both Writ Petitions is an Oil manufacturing Company, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short ‘IOCL’), a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in the marketing of petroleum products and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘Act’).
2. In the course of its business, it had purchased Petroleum products, such as Motor Spirit (petrol), High Speed Diesel oil (HSD), furnace oil, Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS), Bitumen and Naphtha among others. Furnace oil is an input for power generation and is used by HT industrial users as fuel in gensets, to ensure and maintain continuous production.
3. The period in and around 2012 and 2013 saw the State of Tamil Nadu face power shortages and hence the demand for furnace oil at the instance of the HT industrial consumers rose. They approached the State for assistance in this regard and, at their instance, three Notifications came to be issued granting exemption from tax on the sales of furnace oil under Section 30 of the Act.
4. The first is G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 01.08.2012 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 30 (1) and (2) of the Act granting exemption in respect of the tax on sale of furnace oil to HT consumers, who are registered under the provisions of the Act for use in Gensets, subject to production of a certificate. The Notification covered the period 01.02.2012 to 30.09.2012.
5. The second is G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 08.12.2012 that continued the exemption granted under the first G.O. and covered the period 01.10.2012 to 31.05.2013, in the same circumstances as earlier, that is, in regard to sale of furnace oil to HT consumers registered under the Act for use in Gensets, upon production of a certificate.
6. The third is G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 06.02.2013, that superceded the second G.O. and expanded the exemption to include sale of furnace oil by one oil company to another oil company, apart from sales to HT consumers registered under Act for use in gensets.
7. The conditions imposed in the 2013 Notification were (i) a requirement that the HT consumers produce a certificate in Form–I annexed to the Notification and (ii) refund of VAT paid was subject to production of original documents such as sale bills and proof of payment of tax as well as certificates in the forms annexed to the Notification. Refunds obtained from the respondent of the tax paid, were to be fully restored to the respective HT consumers.
8. The exemptions span a little over 1 ½ years, from 01.02.2012 to 31.05.2013 and both the petitioner as well as the purchasing dealers have sought and obtained the benefit of the same, upon compliance with the conditions imposed under the Notifications.
9. While this is so, there was a proposal by the respondent to reverse Input tax credit (ITC) under Section 19(5)(a) of the Act for the period 01.02.2012 to 06.02.2013, vide notice dated 08.09.2016. In reply dated 21.10.2016, the main submissions of the petitioner echo the stand of the petitioner in these Writ Petitions.
10. The petitioner submitted that it has effected re-sale of furnace oil to various purchasers charging tax at 5% and ITC had also been availed. Furnace oil was purchased by the purchasing dealers not just from OMCs but also by way of stock transfer from their own refineries or by way of inter-state purchases.
11. Section 15 which speaks of exempted sales is specific to either goods that are exempted by Notification or as specified in the 4th Schedule. Thus, the scope of sales referred to under Section 15 cannot be expanded to other categories of transactions. Section 30 notifies
Commercial Taxes Officer v. A Infrastructure Limited [(2015) 15 SCC 98]
CST v. Pine Chemicals Limited ((1995) 1 SCC 58
Commercial Taxes Officer v. A Infrastructure Limited
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator –General of West Bengal [(1960) 3 SCR 578]
Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K.RangappaBaliga& Co. [1969 (1) SCC 255]
M/s.Frick India Ltd. V. Union of India and Others [(1990) 1 SCC 400]
Ajay Gandhi and another v. B.Singh and others [(2004) 2 SCC 120]
East India Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta and another v. Collector of Customs
Fibre Boards Private Limited, Bangalore v. Commissioner of Income Tax
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mastan and Another [(2006) 2 SCC 641]
Chimanlal Premchand v. State of Bombay [(1960) 1 SCR 764]
Ruchi Soya Industries Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, Harbour III Assessment Circle
M.U.A.Armugaperumal and sons v. Additional Commercial Tax Officer (FAC)
Sree Murugan Engineering Products v. Commercial Tax Officer
State of Gujarat V. Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd. ((1967) 19 STC 1)
Ravi Prakash Refineries (P) Ltd. V. State of Karnataka ((2016) 12 SCC 193)
State of Karnataka v. M.K.Agro Tech. Private Limited [(2017) 16 SCC 210]
The State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K.Kandaswami and Others [(1975) 4 SCC 745]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between exempted goods and exempted transactions under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the inapplicability of Section....
The UP VAT Act permits input tax credit for both taxable goods and by-products, emphasizing strict interpretation of tax statutes and legislative intent.
Maintenance of township is not integrally tied to business activities, thus ITC claims related to township electricity supply are invalid.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of the dealer to choose whether to avail the exemption, the applicability of input tax credit benefit, and the prospective nature of s....
Taxpayers are eligible for refunds of accumulated input tax credit even when input and output supplies are identical, as clarified through legislative amendments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dealers are entitled to Input Tax Credit on evaporation/handling losses of the petroleum products under the provisions of the Haryana Valu....
feature of input tax credit is what gives value added taxes their main economic characteristic, that of neutrality -To deny the petitioner the benefit of ITC by thrusting an exemption not claimed by ....
Exemptions under G.O.Ms. No. 1091 are general under state law but do not qualify as general exemptions under the Central Sales Tax Act due to specific conditions in the exemption notification.
The legislative amendment to Section 10A of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, effective from 01.04.1993, removed the exemption for turnover tax on sales to Oil Marketing Companies, establishing liabil....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.