Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 928 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRevision of assessment - purchases of old gold - Pre-assessment notices had been issued proposing revision of assessments, on the grounds that the tax in respect of the purchases had not been paid and that the ITC claimed on the gold sent outside the state of Tamil Nadu for the manufacture of jewellery and sold, thereafter admittedly within the state of Tamil Nadu, was not permissible in terms of Section 19(2)(ii) of the Act. HELD THAT:- The assessing authority has not appreciated the methodology followed in the proper perspective. What the petitioner has done is, as apparent from the tabulation and reply extracted above, to remit the purchase tax by taking credit in respect thereof against the credit available in the immediately preceding month. Thus, at the end of the period in question, the liability to purchase tax is taken to be remitted in full by set-off of such liability against credit admittedly available in the monthly returns. This methodology has found acceptance and approval by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, 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 assessee.
|