2021 (8) TMI 179 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Constitutional validity of Section 1(2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (5th Amendment) Act, 2013 - Retrospective operation of the statutory provision pursuant to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (5th Amendment) Act, 2013 - HELD THAT - In view of the new notification of the Government dated 21.04.2015, the demand made on the petitioner is unsustainable. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Retrospective operation of statutory provision under Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (5th Amendment) Act, 2013 leading to unsustainable demands.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a Writ Petition challenging a demand made on the petitioner due to the retrospective operation of the statutory provision under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (5th Amendment) Act, 2013. The Court noted that the demand on the petitioner became unsustainable in light of a new government notification dated 21.04.2015. The Division Bench had previously considered a similar issue related to retrospective demands and had disposed of a writ petition filed by the South India Hotels and Restaurants Association. The counsel for the Revenue had informed the Division Bench that retrospective demands were waived following the government's notification. The Court highlighted that the petitioner in the present case had only challenged the demand and not sought a writ of declaration. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned demand notice issued by the 4th respondent, and closed the Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs.

In a detailed analysis, the Court emphasized that the demand made on the petitioner was a result of the retrospective application of the statutory provision introduced by the 5th Amendment Act, 2013. However, the Court found that the demand became unsustainable due to the issuance of a new government notification on 21.04.2015. This notification played a crucial role in rendering the demand on the petitioner invalid. The Court's decision to allow the writ petition and quash the demand notice was based on the unsustainable nature of the demand in light of the new notification. The Court's ruling aligned with the principles established in previous judgments, including the disposal of a similar writ petition by the Division Bench after the Revenue counsel confirmed the waiver of retrospective demands following the government notification. The Court's thorough analysis and consideration of the legal implications of the retrospective demands resulted in the favorable outcome for the petitioner, highlighting the importance of legal provisions and government notifications in such cases.