Tvl. Cibi Krishna Textiles (P) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that in view of the facts and circumstances and the limited relief sought, a direction should be issued to the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's application dated 20.04.2022 on its own merits. The Respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any views with regard to the merits of the representation and that it was open to the Respondent to consider the representation on its own merits. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

Facts

The Petitioner, Tvl.Cibi Krishna Textiles Private Limited, an assessee under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, was originally assessed for the assessment year 2012-2013. Subsequently, an assessment order dated 30.04.2019 reversed input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs.3,88,240/- and Rs.23,577/-. The Petitioner claims to have explained to the State Tax Officer that there were no defects in their ITC claim. Following this, the Petitioner submitted a petition on 20.04.2022 before the Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST), under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act. However, no action was taken on this petition by the Respondent. Consequently, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Respondent to consider their representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a direction for the Respondent to consider their representation dated 20.04.2022, filed under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, concerning the reversal of input tax credit for the assessment year 2012-2013? The Petitioner argued that they had submitted a representation on 20.04.2022 under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, to the Respondent, seeking reconsideration of the input tax credit reversal. They contended that despite the passage of time, the Respondent had not taken any action on their petition, necessitating the present writ petition for a direction to consider it. The Respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the representation/application of the petitioner would be considered and orders would be passed thereon in accordance with law. No specific arguments were made against the consideration of the representation.