9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration - Petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No. 18034 of 2012 and MP.No. 1 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2020 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH For Petitioner : Mr. P. Rajkumar For Respondent : Mr. ANR. Jayaprathap O R D E R Today, the matter is listed through Video Conference. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The revised assessment order of levying tax at the rate of 12.5% on the entire taxable turn over and also reversal of the Input Tax Credit (ITC), when the petitioner is eligible for the assessment under Section 3 (4) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to TNVAT Act), is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s since it was brought in clearly to correct the lacune contained in the 2006 amendment, being unclear. 37.The Statement of Objections and Reasons in respect of the 2011 amendment makes this position furthermore clear, stating as follows: STATEMENT OF OBJECTS REASONS As per clause (b) of sub-Section (4) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Value added Tax Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 32 of 2006) if the turnover relating to taxable goods of a dealer who has exercised his option to pay tax under clause (a) of the said sub-section (4) in a year, reaches rupees fifty lakhs at any time during that year such dealer is liable to pay tax under sub-section (20) of said section 3 on all his sales of rupees fifty lakhs and above. Due to this p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered the amendment to Section 3(4) of the Act concluding that the Act would have to be retrospectively applied in Tvl.Shanmugamari Timbers V. The Commercial Tax Officer (order dated 20.12.2018 in W.P.(MD) NO.3744 of 2015) 40. The petitioner in that case, a dealer in timber, had challenged an assessment for the period 2010-2011. The turnover of the petitioner had crossed the limit of ₹ 50.00 lakhs in March, 2011 and the sales turnover for the entire year was a sum of ₹ 63,50,354/-. The Department thus took the view that since the turnover for the year was in excess of ₹ 50.00 lakhs, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim the benefit of the presumptive tax scheme and would have to be regularly assessed, whereas, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
