9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that they would fall under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 19 - Held that:- clause (ii) deals with purchase of goods used as input in manufacturing and processing of goods in the State but clause (v) deals with sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. Interestingly, clause (ii) uses the expression "manufacturing or processing", but not the expression "sale in the course of inter- State trade or commerce". On the contrary, clause (v) uses the expression "sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce", but not the expression "manufacturing or processing". If at least the expression "sale" had been used in clause (ii), one can conclude that clause (ii) applies only to manufacture and sale within the State. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions for advance ruling are pending before the concerned authority. Heard Mr. N. Prasad, learned counsel for 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy transactions by the principal within the State in the manner as may be prescribed. (3) . . . As stated earlier, the petitioner 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re and sale within the State. But, both these clauses omit the expressions essential for the interpretation that the parties want to view 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
