9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for this purpose and in light of the distinction made that the Division Bench had set aside the order of the learned single Judge that had been passed on the anvil of Section 19(2)(v), remanding the matter to the file of the learned single Judge for decision in regard to the distinction made by the petitioner - Since the decision on the aspect of applicability of Section 19(2)(v) impacts the case of manufacturers as well, of which the petitioner is, admittedly, one, the petitioner does not wish to make a foray into the argument taken by it in W.A.No.1654 of 2019 [ 2018 (3) TMI 1272 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]. It merely wishes to obtain the benefit of the decision of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 [ 2022 (4) TMI 1204 - MADRAS HIGH COUR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t liable to be reversed in the case of a 'manufacturer' and paragraph 139 reads as follows: "........ 139. In the present case, the mischief is two in numbers. Firstly, the one identified by the State and the other, the counter mischief occasioned by their curative action and implementation of the proviso by the department. The end result is that the legislature decided to restore the original position with respect to Section 19 (2) (v) by omitting and substituting with a new provision to remove the mischief caused by wrongful implementation. The actual intention of the legislature is to be derived only by interpretation of the provision to find out its actual applicability and decide whether it is curative or substantative. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in the manufacture or processing of the goods within the State, the subsequent event of the manufactured goods being sold by way of iner-state / intra-state sale would have no bearing nor does it result in imposing any limitation/restriction or whittle down the right to ITC earned in terms of Section 19(2)(ii) or 19(2)(v) of the TNVAT Act in the interregnum period." 4. The decision/conclusion on this aspect is admittedly applicable to the petitioner on all fours. 5. That apart, the purpose for which the matter was remanded to the file of the learned single Judge by the Division Bench was in light of a distinction that had been drawn by the petitioner when the matter had come up for hearing along with the larger batch. The distinctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
