M/S. V.V. Ramasamy & Sons vs. The State Of Tamil Nadu

Held

The Court noted that the writ petitions challenging the impugned proceedings dated January 11, 2013, had been considered by this Court in its order dated October 30, 2015, in the case of M/s.First Garments Mfg. Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer. In light of this prior decision and the petitioner's stated intention not to pursue the present writ petitions, the Court found no reason to adjudicate the matter afresh. The Court did not delve into the merits of the challenge to Section 18(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, or its constitutional validity concerning Articles 286(1)(b) and 265. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by the High Court, and the petitioner does not wish to pursue the current petition, it will be dismissed as infructuous. No specific operative directions were issued beyond the dismissal of the petitions.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s.V.V.Ramasamy & Sons Match Factory, M/s.Nirmala Matches, and V.V.R.Global Exports, filed writ petitions challenging Section 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (TNVAT Act). They sought a declaration that this section was ultra vires to Articles 286(1)(b) and 265 of the Constitution of India. The impugned proceedings were dated January 11, 2013. The petitioners argued that the condition imposed for claiming a refund of Input Tax Credit (ITC) within 180 days was unenforceable. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes, and the Commercial Tax Officer – I, Virudhunagar, were the respondents.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 18(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, which imposes a 180-day time limit for claiming a refund of Input Tax Credit, is ultra vires to Article 286(1)(b) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India and therefore unenforceable? The petitioner contended that Section 18(3) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, is ultra vires to the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 286(1)(b) and 265, and thus the condition of claiming a refund of Input Tax Credit within 180 days is unenforceable. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. R.D. Ganesan, stated that the present writ petitions challenging the impugned proceedings dated January 11, 2013, have already been considered by this Court in a previous order dated October 30, 2015, in the case of M/s.First Garments Mfg. Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commercial Tax Officer. Consequently, the petitioner did not wish to pursue the present writ petitions. The respondents, represented by Ms. J. Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader, did not present any arguments as the petitioner chose not to pursue the case.