9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai, in proceedings dated 29.11.2007. There are no infirmity with the methodology adopted by the petitioner. Clearly, the petitioner has remitted tax on purchases and this fact is not denied. What is disputed is only the methodology of set-off against the monthly returns which, when approved by the Commissioner in proceedings dated 29.11.2007 ought not to have been rejected by the assessing authority - issue held in favor of petitioners. Reversal of ITC on worn-out jewellery sent outside the state for manufacture and received back and sold within the State - HELD THAT:- The issue has been held in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of PATINA GOLD ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2017 (10) TMI 185 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] , where it was held that the mere fact that the manufacturing unit is located outside the State of Tamil Nadu cannot be the basis, for denial of ITC, under section 19(1) of the 2006 Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the 2006 Act is, thus, declared bad in law - this issue is also held in favour of the assessee. Petition allowed - decided in favor of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suffered output tax. Thus, in computing output tax liability per month, the petitioner had set-off such credit arriving at the net figure of tax liability, that has been duly discharged. The respondent was however of the view that the methodology adopted was incorrect and that the petitioner ought to have remitted the tax liability in full, separately seeking credit of tax paid under Section 12(2) of the Act. 6. The details of liability under section 9(1) and 12(1), eligible credit under section 19(1) and 12(2), balance carried forward after set-off and remitted to the Department are set out by the petitioner in affidavit to W.P.(MD) No.9853 of 2010 as follows: Sl. No. Month Liability under Section 9(1) Eligible credit under Section 19(1) Liability under Section 12(1) Eligible credit under Section 12(2) Balance due Excess carried forward Total eligible ITC Total tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 46559 46559 - 347752 2771225 2423472 - - 6 Sept, 2007 852536 844106 53123 53123 - 339322 1244981 905659 - - 7 Oct, 2007 640877 622849 104080 104080 - 321294 1066251 744957 - - 8 Nov, 2007 537993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut exception. WP(MD)Nos.8062 to 8064 of 2010 and 9853, 8065 to 8067 of 2010 (in re.Bhima Jewellers) challenge various proceedings of the respondent including assessments. The summary of the writ petitions in the case of Bhima Jewellers have been circulated by way of a chart and I extract the chart below for the sake of convenience. Sl. W.P.No. Issue involved Prayer 1 8061 of 2010 Reversal of input credit relying on the provisions of Section 19(2)(ii) and Section 19(4) Writ of Declaration to declare the provisions of Section 19(2)(ii) and Section 19(4) as unconstitutional. 2 8062 of 2010 Reversal of input credit relying on the provisions of Section 19(2)(ii) and Section 19(4) Writ of Certiorari to quash assessment order dated 13.05.10 for assessment year 2006-07. 3 8063 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on purchases of old gold, referred to within the trade as 'beaten up gold', is liable to be claimed as ITC. Reliance was placed on a Clarification issued by the Special Commissioner in letter No. VAT cell/7067/2007/(VCC No.627) dated 31.05.2007 that, according to the petitioner, supported its stand. The reply of the petitioner (in W.P.No.9853 of 2010 and batch) dated 01.02.2010 is extracted below to illustrate the stand taken by the petitioners in assessment: ' With reference to your above referred notices the matter concerning the claim of purchase tax under Sec.12 has already been clarified as per letter No.VAT Cell 7067/2007/ (VCC No.627) dated 31.05.2007 clearly mentioning it that purchase tax paid on the purchase of beaten up gold when utilized for manufacture is eligible for input tax credit. The Details are as below: 2007-2008 Apr 07 3477241 34772 May-07 3780627 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010, 15.03.2010, 01.06.2010 and 07.06.2010. The consistent stand of the petitioners' is that the methodology adopted by it for reversal has found approval by the Special Commissioner in proceedings dated 29.11.2007. However, notwithstanding the replies filed and the specific reference to the Clarification issued, the impugned orders have been passed, confirming the proposals. 11. A detailed counter has been filed wherein the authority expresses the view that the methodology followed by the petitioner does not tantamount to remittance of the taxes as contemplated by statute. In regard to the second issue relating to the movement of the gold from Tamil Nadu to other States for manufacturing, the respondent alleges that the details of job work carried out at Kerala were not furnished in order to establish the activity of job work. The movement of beaten jewels to Kerala and back were not established and the petitioner, according to the respondent, has not maintained the various registers mandated as per Rule 6(3)(a) such as production-cum-stock register in Form-H, Form-JJ and others. The respondent argues that Section 2(27) which defines 'manufacture' to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraphs No.3 and 4, the Commissioner states thus: 14. In the light of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity with the methodology adopted by the petitioner. Clearly, the petitioner has remitted tax on purchases and this fact is not denied. What is disputed is only the methodology of set-off against the monthly returns which, when approved by the Commissioner in proceedings dated 29.11.2007 ought not to have been rejected by the assessing authority. This issue is held in favour of the petitioners. 15. The second issue, concerning the reversal of ITC on worn-out jewellery sent outside the state for manufacture and received back and sold within the State, has been held in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patina Gold Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Park Road Circle, Erode and another , (2018 50 GSTR 114 (Mad)) wherein the Division Bench, at Para 29.1., states as follows: '29.1 A bare perusal of the aforesaid extract would show that ITC availed of need not be reversed merely because goods purchased are sent temporarily outside the State for the purposes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
