Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

M/S.Shanmuga Salt & Chemicals vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 18 February, 2021

Author: C.Saravanan

Bench: C.Saravanan

                                                               W.P.Nos.4722 & 4723 of 2015

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 18.02.2021

                                                      CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                           W.P.No.4722 & 4723 of 2015
                                           and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015


                     M/s.Shanmuga Salt & Chemicals,
                     Rep. by its Proprietor – V.Rajamanickam,
                     S/o. T.M.Velusamy, 49 years,
                     No.41, Cheran Street,
                     Bhavani Main Road,
                     Erode – 638 004.                         ... Petitioner in both WPs


                                                         Vs

                     The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
                     Chithode Assessment Circle,
                     Erode.                                   ...Respondent in both WPs


                     Common Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the
                     Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to call for the
                     records on the file of the respondent in his impugned proceedings
                     made in TIN 33593063027/07-08 and 08-09 respectively dated
                     13.01.2015 quash the same as illegal and contrary to the scheme of
                     the Act.


                                     For Petitioner       : Mr.S.Rajasekar
                                     (in both W.Ps)

                                    For Respondent        : Mr.M.Hariharan,
                                    (in both W.Ps)          Additional Government Pleader


                     ___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     Page 1 of 5
                                                                  W.P.Nos.4722 & 4723 of 2015




                                                   COMON ORDER


                               By this common order both the writ petitions are being

                     disposed of.



                               2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged

                     the impugned orders dated 13.01.2015 passed by the respondent

                     for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.


                               3.   The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner effected

                     sales to 100% EOU which are zero rated sale under Section 18 of

                     the TNVAT Act, 2006. As per Section 18(2), a “dealer, who makes

                     zero rate sale, shall be entitled to refund of input tax paid by him on

                     purchase of those goods, which are exported as such or consumed

                     or used in the manufacture of other goods that are exported as

                     specified in sub-section (1) subject to such restrictions and

                     conditions as may be prescribed”.



                               4.   According to the respondent, the petitioner should have

                     filed a refund claim in terms of sub clause (2) of Section 18 of the

                     TNVAT, 2006.         On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner


                     ___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     Page 2 of 5
                                                                W.P.Nos.4722 & 4723 of 2015

                     that under sub-section (1), a “dealer is eligible for input tax credit

                     or refund of the amount of the tax paid on the purchase of goods

                     specified in the First Schedule including capital goods, by a

                     registered dealer in the State, subject to such restrictions and

                     conditions as may be prescribed”.



                               5.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                     petitioner has not claimed refund of Input Tax Credit under Section

                     18(2) and therefore, question of filing a refund claim in Form W

                     under Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2007 does not arise.



                               6. I have considered the argument of the learned counsel for

                     petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.        I have also

                     perused Section 18 of the TNVAT, Act 2006. It is very clear. There

                     are two options available under the scheme of Section 18.           In

                     respect of sale effected to 100% EOU, a dealer is entitled to adjust

                     the Input Tax Credit or claim refund under sub clause (2) to Section

                     18. The petitioner has opted to adjust the Input Tax Credit. The

                     petitioner has not opted to claim the refund of Input Tax Credit

                     subject on the sale effected to 100% EOU under sub clause (2) to

                     Section 18.




                     ___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     Page 3 of 5
                                                                 W.P.Nos.4722 & 4723 of 2015

                               7. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by

                     the respondent holding that the petitioner was not entitled to

                     refund and consequently not entitled to adjust the Input Tax Credit,

                     is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders to that extent

                     is set aside leaving the other issue open for the petitioner to take it

                     on appeal before the Appellate Court, if desired.



                               8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are partly allowed. Since

                     the limitations for filing appeal before the Appellate Deputy

                     Commissioner has already expired, a grace period of 30 days is

                     granted to the petitoner for filing appeal before such appellate

                     authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy

                     of this order, subject to other requirements of the Act.      No costs.

                     Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.



                                                                              18.02.2021
                     Index: Yes/ No
                     Internet : Yes/No

                     drl


                     To

                     The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
                     Chithode Assessment Circle,
                     Erode.


                     ___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     Page 4 of 5
                                    W.P.Nos.4722 & 4723 of 2015




                                            C.SARAVANAN,J.

drl W.P.No.4722 & 4723 of 2015 18.02.2021 ___________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page 5 of 5