9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 948 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of appeal - Interpretation of Statute - Section 19 (2) (ii) of TNVAT Act - Held that - the State is in the process of preferring Appeals, by re-presenting the Appeal papers and the Appeals are yet to be numbered. The settled legal position being that, mere pendency of the Appeal(s), without interim order(s), will not amount to the grant of stay of the order(s) passed by the Lower Court or Lower Forum - In the instant cases, it appears that the Appeals filed by the State are yet to be numbered. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate direction in these Writ Petitions, however, leaving it open to the respondent to pursue their Appeals.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of proviso to Section 19(2)(ii) of TNVAT Act. 2. Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and refund sought by the petitioner. 3. Pending Appeals by the State challenging similar decisions. Issue 1: Interpretation of proviso to Section 19(2)(ii) of TNVAT Act: The judgment involved a detailed analysis of the proviso to Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act in the context of claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Court emphasized that a dealer can claim ITC for specified goods used for specific purposes as outlined in the Act. The proviso limits ITC in certain scenarios, particularly for purchases made against declarations in Inter-State Trade. The Court clarified that the proviso's limitation applies only to specific clauses and not universally across all purposes mentioned in the Act. The judgment highlighted the adverse impact of misinterpretation of the proviso on manufacturers, leading to a lack of competitiveness compared to neighboring states. Issue 2: Reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and refund sought by the petitioner: The petitioner, a registered dealer, sought a Writ of Mandamus to cancel the reversal of ITC wrongly made by the respondent and requested a refund. The petitioner's case was supported by a previous judgment involving similar issues, indicating that the reversal of ITC was not tenable based on the law laid down by the Court. The respondent opposed the relief sought by the petitioner, citing pending Appeals by the State challenging similar decisions. However, the Court noted that the mere pendency of Appeals without interim orders does not stay the lower court's decisions. Consequently, the Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within a specified timeframe, in line with the previous judgment. Issue 3: Pending Appeals by the State challenging similar decisions: The State had filed Appeals challenging decisions related to ITC reversals, similar to the petitioner's case. The Court acknowledged the pending Appeals but clarified that the pendency of Appeals without interim orders does not automatically stay the lower court's decisions. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass orders accordingly, allowing the State to pursue its Appeals simultaneously. This approach aimed to ensure a fair consideration of the petitioner's case while respecting the State's right to challenge unfavorable decisions through the appellate process. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, interpretations, and directions provided by the Court in addressing the petitioner's concerns regarding ITC reversals and refunds under the TNVAT Act.
|
