Sl.No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
Sara Leather Industries, Represented by its Partner, M. Akbar Hussain, Kilpauk, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commercial (ST), (FAC), Kilpauk Assessment Circle, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. No. 9721, 9738, 9739, 9744, 9746, 9724 & 9748 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 10328, 10316, 10320, 10329, 10333, 10338 & 10341 of 2019
Decided On : 20-06-2022
TDS - Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 - Section 18(1), Section 5(1) and (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act - The court discussed the exemption claimed by an export oriented unit (EOU) and the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed. The court referred to the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Section 5(1) and (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act to determine the applicability of zero-rating sales and the eligibility for input tax credit or refund.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions challenged orders passed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 for the periods 2009-10 to 2015-16. The common issue related to exemption claimed by an export oriented unit (EOU) and denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue stood squarely covered in favor of the petitioner by an order of the Division Bench of the Court. The court held that the reversal of income tax concession had been done on a misconception and misreading of the provisions of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Issues: The issues included exemption claimed by an export oriented unit (EOU) and denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed, as well as tax deduction at source (TDS) for various assessment periods.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Section 5(1) and (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which determined the zero-rating sales and the eligibility for input tax credit or refund.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned orders and confirming the reversal of ITC on dealer whose registration had been cancelled for the period 2011-12. The court also quashed the revision of assessment for the period 2015-16.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in WP.No.9721 of 2019: Writ Petition 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 33731120428/2009-10 dated 31.01.2019 and quash the same.) 1. This batch of seven writ petitions challenging orders passed for the periods 2009-10 to 2015-16 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act') relates to varied issues as tabulated below:
| Sl.No. | Year | Issues | Page No.Objection | Page No.-Order | Confirmation in the order |
| 1. | 2009-10 | i.EOU | 52/70 & Para 9 & 10, 69 & 70 | 102 & 103, 102 | 104 |
| 2. | 2010-11 | i.EOU | 55 69/70 | 109/106 115 | 118 |
| 3. | 2011-12 | i.EOU | 121/123/121/126/122/ | 129 | 131 |
| 4. | 2012-13 | TDS | 60/134/136/138 | 140 | 141 |
| 5. | 2013-14 | TDS | 144/148 | 150 | 151 |
| 6. | 2014-15 | TDS | 154/158 | 160 | 160 |
| 7. | 2015-16 | Proposal received from the enforcement wing on stock reconciliation 26 (31.05.2016) | 26/73 to 85 | 166 | 167 |
2. One issue which is common to the assessments at Serial No. 1 to 3, relates to exemption claimed by an export oriented unit (EOU) and consequent denial of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed.
3. Both Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would point out that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by an order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (Md) Nos.558 and 559 of 2013 dated 14.12.2018. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as follows:
3. This Court after considering the fact that the respondent has sold the goods to a company which is located in the Special Economic Zone and it is not disputed that 100% of the goods were also exported without any exemption, held that Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 gets attracted as the sale falls under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Writ Petitions were thus allowed and the impugned order of the appellant was quashed holding that reversal of income tax concession has been done on a misconception and misreading of the provisions of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,1956.
4. Section 5(1) and (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows:
''5.When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export:-(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the Territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the Customs Frontiers of India.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the Territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export.''
5. Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 reads as follows:
''18. Zero-rating:--(1)The following shall be zero-rate sale for the purpose of this Act, and shall be eligible for input tax credit or refund of the amount of the tax paid on the purchase of goods specified in the First Schedule including capital goods, by a registered dealer in the State, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed:--
(i) A sale as specified under sub-section(1) or (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956(Central Act 74 of 1956);
(ii) Sale of goods to any registered dealer located in Special Economic Zone in the State, if such registered dealer has been aut
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Section 5(1) and (3) of the C....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the absolute right of manufacturers to avail Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 19(2)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and the ....
The Assessing Authority must consider all objections and the deviation proposal in a holistic perspective before passing a speaking order of assessment on the issue relating to the claim of input tax....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the continuity of business in the petitioner's hands, despite the demise of the original dealer, validated the assessment orders made in the n....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the assessing officer to consider the petitioner's submissions and evidence before issuing assessment orders, ensuring a fair o....
Erroneous reasoning for rejecting rectification application under TNVAT Act, 2006 based on prescribed time limit.
Strict compliance with statutory conditions for availing concessions and benefits under the Act.
Assessment orders quashed as barred by six-year limitation under S.27 TNVAT Act from prior assessments.
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.