9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d impact prior assessment periods as well, the Supreme Court in the case of J JAYAM CO. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANR. [ 2016 (9) TMI 408 - SUPREME COURT] reversed the aforesaid conclusion of this Court confirming the position that Section 19(20) would operate only from the date of its insertion, prospectively, i.e., from 19 th August, 2010. Thus the provision could not have been invoked in the present case, for the period, viz. 2008-09 - The invocation of Section 19(20) in the present case is thus not in order and to this extent, the assessment is quashed. Penalty levied under Section 27(4) to this extent is also quashed. Reversal of ITC in regard to packing materials - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has specifically challen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to be reversed on the ground that the materials were utilised for packing of export commodities. 3. Despite objections, the proposals in the notice were confirmed along with penalty under Section 27(4) of the Act. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the first Appellate Authority, arrayed as R1, that came to be rejected on 07.11.2019 as against which the present writ petition is filed. 4. Two issues arise in this Writ Petition. The first relates to the reversal of ITC on discounts received by the petitioner from the supplying dealers. Though both learned counsel have taken me in detail through the provisions of Section 2(41) and the Explanation thereunder, Rule 10(6)(B)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealer' was entitled to ITC of ₹ 10/- on re-sale, which was paid by the dealer as VAT while purchasing the goods from the vendors. However, in view of Section 19(20) inserted by way of amendment, he would now be entitled to ITC of ₹ 9.50. This is clearly a provision which is made for the first time to the detriment of the dealers. Such a provision, therefore, cannot have retrospective effect, more so, when vested right had accrued in favour of these dealers in respect of purchases and sales made between January 01, 2007 to August 19, 2010. Thus, while upholding the vires of sub-section (20) of Section 19, we set aside and strike down Amendment Act 22 of 2010 whereby this amendment was given retrospective effect from January ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
