O R D E R

By this common order, all these three writ petitions have been disposed of.

2.In all these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the respondent for the Assessment Years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Challenge to the impugned order is based on the main submissions that the impugned orders have been passed without following principles of natural justice.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one of four issues involved in these Assessment Years, relates to the reversal of input tax credit availed by the petitioner.

4.During the respective Assessment Years, credit was sought to be denied in terms of Section 19(20) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 w.e.f 19.08.2010 and thereafter with retrospective effect from 01.01.2007 interms of TN Act, 42 of 2010.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner availed inputs tax credit as per the Section 19 of the TNVAT has it stood during the period in dispute Rule 10(6)(b)(ii)(C) of the TNVAT Rules, 2007. 6.He submits that the petitioner is engaged in sale of consumer durable goods such as TV, Washing Machine etc. It is the case of the petitioner that the manufacturers and wholesale dealers passed on various kinds of incentives and discounts to petitioner. This according to the respondent impacted the credit availed on the goods which had already been sold. 7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits though the amendement to Section 19(20) was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court Jayam & Co Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Main Amaindakarai Assessment Circle, Chennai and An Others (And Other Cases) reported in [2013] 65 VST 260 (Mad), the said decision was partly reserved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayam & Co Vs. Assistant Commissioner and another reported in [2016] 96 VST 1 (SC).

8.He further submits that while upholding the constitutional validity of amendement to Section 19(20) of the TNVAT Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ultimately concluded that no retrospective operation can be given as its seeks to create liability. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the following passage from decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayam & Co Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) Main Amaindakarai Assessment Circle, Chennai and An Others (And Other Cases), [2016] 96 VST 1 (SC) which reads as under:

When we keep in mind the aforesaid parameters laid down by this Court in testing validity of retrospective operation of fiscal laws, we find that the amendement in question fails to meet these tests. The High Court has primarily gone by the fact that there was no unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period. That is no correct. Moreover, as can be seen, sub-section (20) of Section 19 is altogether new provision introduced for determining the input tax in specified situation, i.e., where goods are sold at a lesser price than the pruchase price of goods. The manner of calculation of the ITC was entirely different before this amendment. In the example, which has been given by us in the earlier part of the judgement, ''dealer'' was entitled to ITC of Rs.10 on release, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section 19(20) inserted by way of amendement, he would now be entitled to ITC of Rs.9.50. This is clearly a provision which is made for the first time to the detriment of the dealers. Such a provision, therefore, cannot have retrospective effect, more so, when vested right had accrued in favour of these dealers in respect of purchases and sales made between January 1,2007 to August 19, 2010. Thus, while upholding the vires of sub-section (20) of Section 19, we set aside and strike down Amendement Act 22 of 2010 whereby this amendement was given retrospective effect from January 1, 2007.

9.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also attained f