Tvl.Feeds And Condiments vs. The Assistant Commissioner(CT)

Held

The Court, considering the limited scope of the prayer and the pendency of the petitioner's representation, did not delve into the merits of the case. It directed the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (CT) – II, Virudhunagar, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits of the matter. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory representation is pending before an authority, and the authority acknowledges its pendency, the High Court may direct the authority to dispose of the representation within a stipulated time, rather than adjudicating the underlying dispute in a writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Feeds and Condiments Industries, is an assessee engaged in the business of Tin Containers. For the tax period 2014-2015, the petitioner filed returns, claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The assessment for this period was completed on 31.10.2015, accepting the petitioner's reported turnover. Subsequently, the respondent, The Assistant Commissioner (CT) – II, Virudhunagar, issued a notice on 26.07.2016 proposing to reverse the ITC. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation on 20.04.2017 under Section 84 of the Act, seeking a refund of the reversed ITC, citing a High Court judgment. As this representation was pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for its disposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent is obligated to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.04.2017 seeking refund of reversed Input Tax Credit, in light of the law laid down in Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, which held that the Proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, inserted by Act No.28 of 2013, was not applicable to manufacturers. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent should consider their representation for refund of ITC, relying on the precedent set in Everest Industries Limited. They contended that the reversal of ITC was erroneous based on this judgment. Respondent's Contention: The respondent acknowledged that the petitioner's representation under Section 84 of the Act was pending and sought time for appropriate orders on merits.