9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the petitioner. Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes notice for the respondent. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of wheels and air-suspension automobile components. They claim that they purchased goods, which fall under Sl. No. 67 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short, "the Act"). These goods are industrial inputs, with which, the petitioner manufactures other goods. Therefore, claiming that the resultant goods are sold in the course of inter- State trade, rated under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, against C form declaration, the petitioner had the benefit of some input-tax credit. But, after the amendment brought fort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is a manufacturer. But, the goods manufactured by them are sold in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, under section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Therefore, the assessing authority took a position that the case of the petitioner would fall under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 19 and that therefore, the proviso inserted by the amendment would apply to them. This is why, in the notice dated January 20, 2014, the respondent called upon the petitioner to claim the input-tax credit in excess of three per cent. and reverse the credit up to three per cent. But, the contention of the petitioner is that their case would fall under clause (ii) and not under clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 19. However, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w to the proviso to clause (v). While the petitioner wants to read into clause (ii), the expression "sale", the respondent wants to read into clause (v), the expression "manufacture". Therefore, if one is wrong, the other is also wrong and if one is right, the other should also be right. In the light of the above confusion, the petitioner did the right thing by making an application to the Advance Ruling Authority. As a matter of fact, it is only cases of this nature that qualify for an advance ruling and hence, the respondent ought to have waited for a decision on this legal issue. Since the respondent did not wait, the petitioner is justified in coming up before this court. What is more important is the fact that the impugned orders do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
