M/S.Tamilnadu Jaibharath Mills vs. The Assistant Commissioner(CT)

Held

The Court held that the issues concerning the interpretation of the amendment made to Section 19(2)(v) and the insertion of the proviso to Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, and its subsequent omission, have been resolved by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 dated 31.03.2022. The Court also noted that a similar submission regarding the State's intention to appeal was considered in W.A.No.812 of 2019 dated 08.09.2022, where the Court dismissed the appeal, stating the issues were covered against the State. Therefore, the respondent was directed to take into account these Division Bench judgments while completing the assessment and pass orders in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Tamilnadu Jaibharath Mills Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner(CT), to consider their representation dated 25.05.2016. The petitioner requested a refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) that was reversed under the Proviso to Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006. This reversal was based on an amendment to Section 19(2)(v) and the insertion of the proviso, which were later omitted. The petitioner sought to apply a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.7969 of 2014 etc batch of cases dated 06.02.2017.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent should consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.05.2016 for refund of ITC reversed under the Proviso to Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, in light of previous High Court judgments? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that their representation should be considered and the ITC refunded by applying the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.7969 of 2014 etc batch of cases dated 06.02.2017. They relied on the principle that the amendments to Section 19(2)(v) and the proviso to Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, and their subsequent omission, have been interpreted by this Court in their favour. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent did not explicitly record arguments against the petitioner's claim. However, the judgment notes that the State intended to file an appeal against a Division Bench order concerning similar issues. The Court considered this submission but proceeded to pass an order based on existing judgments.