2017 (9) TMI 284

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 25.07.2017.
T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mrs. Hema Murali Krishnan For the Respondent : Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai ORDER Heard Mrs. Hema Murali Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (henceforth, referred to as TNVAT Act) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is before this Court, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to consider the their representation dated 25.07.2017, and to refund the amount of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es. 20.2 Therefore, there is, to my mind, nothing in the proviso, which will have me come to the conclusion that, it is attracted to any of the other clausereferred to in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act. 20.3 A plain reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act would show that, as long as specified goods, which suffer tax are used for any of the purposes set out in clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 19, the assessee should be able to claim the ITC, with a caveat in so far as clause (v) is concerned. The caveat being, the limitation, which is encapsulated in the proviso to Section 19(2) of the 2006 Act. Therefore, the limitation provided in the proviso would app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itioner submits that, by applying the law laid down by the Court in the decision referred to supra, it has to be necessarily held that reversal of ITC directed to be paid by the petitioner is not tenable. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, on the other hand, would oppose the relief sought for by the petitioner, by contending that as against the decision in M/s. Everest Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) the State has preferred Appeals and the same is in Sr Stage, yet to be numbered (as the papers relating to the Appeals have been returned by the Registry for certain compliances). 6. In view of the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, it appears that the State is in the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X