Tvl Zf Electronis Tvs INDIA Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl ZF Electronis TVS India Private Limited (now TVS Sensing Solutions Private Limited), challenged an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC). This order demanded a balance tax of Rs.15,26,721/-. The demand arose because the petitioner allegedly failed to file an industrial input certificate. The respondent's prior order, dated 03.07.2025, had modified proceedings concerning TIN 33095021053/2014-15. The core of the dispute was the levy of tax at a higher rate of 14.5 percent on a turnover of Rs.1,60,70,754/- instead of the claimed 5 percent, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.
Held
The Court held that the Assessing Officer was wrong in insisting that the petitioner must file an industrial input certificate as contemplated under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2017. The Court adopted the reasoning from previous High Court judgments, specifically citing [2021] 91 GSTR 101 (Mad) and an order dated 05.11.2024 in W.P.Nos.9656 of 2021 etc batch. These precedents established that Rule 6(3)(b) should not be construed as mandatory but only as directory. The respondent's insistence on the certificate, based on a mandatory interpretation of the rule, was therefore incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh assessment on merits and in accordance with the law. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
1. Whether the requirement to file an industrial input certificate under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2017, is mandatory or directory, and if the non-production of such a certificate is fatal to the assessee's claim for a lower tax rate? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent erred in insisting on the filing of an industrial input certificate as contemplated under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2017. They relied on the High Court's decision in [2021] 91 GSTR 101 (Mad) (Sungwoo Gestamp Hitch (Chennai) Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Varadharajapuram) and another order dated 05.11.2024 in W.P.Nos.9656 of 2021 etc batch, which held that the said rule is directory and not mandatory. Therefore, non-production of the certificate should not be fatal to their claim. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondent. However, the respondent's action of demanding the balance tax implies an assertion that the petitioner's claim for the lower tax rate was invalid due to the absence of the industrial input certificate.
Sections Cited
Rule 6(3)(b), Section 3(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and Dr.Thangaraja Salai,
Heard both sides. 2.The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance tax to the tune of Rs.15,26,721/-. Such differential demand has arisen on the sole ground that the petitioner did not file industrial input certificate. 3.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner draws my attention to the decision reported in [2021] 91 GSTR 101 (Mad) (Sungwoo Gestamp Varadharajapuram). A learned Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Dr.Anitha Sumanth) had held as follows:- 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis “2.The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sheet metal components and effects sales to Hyundai Motor India Limited (in short ‘Hyundai’). The issue that arises in these Writ Petitions relates to liability in terms of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short ‘Act’). 6.While this is so and though the petitioner had filed detailed replies objecting to the proposal contained in the pre- assessment notices, orders of assessment, confirming the pre- assessment proposals to disallow the difference of ITC came to be passed. The benefit claimed by the petitioner was also denied on the ground that no industrial input certificates (in short ‘certificate(s)’) were filed to substantiate its claim. 10.The provisions of Rule 6(3)(b), which I am called upon to interpret in this case, read as follows: ‘Rule 6 Accounts (1)..... ........ R.6(3)(b) Every registered dealer who is a manufacturer or producer and purchases industrial inputs to use them in manufacture of taxable goods shall issue a certificate to the seller containing the details of his Taxpayer Identification Number, the details of goods purchased, details of goods manufactured and the name and address and Taxpayer Identification Number of the seller.’
In the light of the discussion as aforesaid, I am of the view that non-production of a Declaration under section 6(3)(b) is not fatal to the claim of the assessee. Having said so, the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Assessing Authority has in the impugned order found that only a supporting statement was filed by the petitioner and had no actual particulars of transactions such as work order, inward delivery challan, quantity received and outward delivery challan were supplied. If at all the petitioner was of the view that its claim was in order, the burden rested upon it to justify such claim with whatever material that it could furnish. Such factual particulars do not appear to have been filed.” 4.The very same approach has been adopted by another learned Judge of this Court while partly allowing W.P.Nos.9656 of 2021 etc batch vide order dated 05.11.2024. 5.Respectfully adopting the very same approach, I hold that the assessing officer was wrong in insisting that the petitioner should file industrial input tax certificate as contemplated under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2017. The authority proceeded on the premise that the aforesaid rule requires filing of such certificate. When this Court had held that the rule cannot be construed as mandatory but only as directory, the authority was wrong in putting a mandatory construction on the said rule. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the respondent to pass an order afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To: Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), The Office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), West Veli Street Assessment Circle, Ground Floor, C.T. Complex, Dr.Thangaraja Salai, K.K.Nagar, Madurai 625020. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ias
2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.