Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.40 seconds)Ald Automotive Pvt Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer And Ors Now ... on 12 October, 2018
6. That apart, learned Government Advocate seeks to
distinguish the decision of R.K.Knits (supra) relying on the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALD
Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commercial Tax Officer and
Ors. [2018 (70) GST 751 (S.C.)], wherein the provisions of
Section 19(11) of the TNVAT Act was challenged. Section
19(11) states as follows:
Jayam & Co. vs Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2016
8. They also noticed the earlier judgment in the case of
Jayam and Co. Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Another
[2016 (15) SCC 125], wherein the provisions of Sections
19(20), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Act had been challenged. In
Jayam and Co., the proposition that was settled was that ITC
could not be claimed as a matter of right as it was, but a
concession extended to the Assessee by the State.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
W.P.Nos.4246, 4249 & 4290 of 2019
Section 16 in Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Mohib Shoes Pvt. Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 30 June, 2022
Both learned counsel would accede to the position that the issue arising in
this matter relating to delay in filing of Form-W and consequential deposit of
refund, is covered by several decisions of this Court commencing from
R.K.Knits Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Adyar II Assessment Circle and
Others [(2015) 84 VST 521] which has been followed recently in Mohib Shoes
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), WP.No.12762 of 2019 order
dated 30.06.2022, in favour of the assessee.
Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006
1