TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State of Tamil Nadu & another [2017 (3) TMI 279 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Held that: - The respondent should have only seen as to whether the case of the petitioner would fall within the scope and ambit of the decision made by this Court in the said case in order to grant the very same benefit to the petitioner also - the other reasoning given by the respondent that the said provisions had not been q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent in rejecting the application filed under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, is erroneous, as the respondent has not considered the scope of the order passed in Everest Industries Limited -v- State of Tamil Nadu another reported in [2017] 100 VST 158 (Mad). He further submitted that the respondent has also erroneo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id case of Everest Industries Limited and on the other hand, he ought to have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the above said decision. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The petitioner seeks reversal of Income Tax Credit under Section 19 (2) (v) of the TNVAT Act, which was rejected by the Assessing Authority. However, the petitioner, by relying on the decision of this Court made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the said provisions had not been quashed by this Court also cannot be sustained, in view of the fact that in the above said decision, this Court has categorically found as to who are the persons entitled to the benefit under the said provision. Therefore, the respondent has to re-consider the whole issue by applying the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
