9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003(hereinafter refereed to as the 'KVAT Act', for short), both these appeals are considered together and disposed of through this common judgment. 2. Challenge against the order impugned in these cases was already considered and decided by a Division Bench of this court in the judgment in OTA Nos.8 and 10 of 2013(dated 22-06-2017). In the said judgment the validity of the impugned clarification was upheld, by holding that the sale by any registered dealers like that of the appellants herein, whose business places are within the Domestic Tariff Area(DTA), to units within the Special Economic Zone(SEZ) do not qualify to be deemed exports. It is held that their statutory entitlements and benefits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... make it clear that the liability of the appellants with respect to the period prior to the impugned clarification will be governed by the earlier clarification issued by the authority dated 15.09.2007 and on that basis to declare that the appellants will be entitled for exemption under Section 6(7)(b) and will be entitled for refund of the Input Tax Credit under Section 13(2) of the KVAT Act. 5. The above request is opposed by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, raising a contention that, question as to whether the sale made by the appellants to a unit in the SEZ would qualify to be export sales, has already been decided by a learned Judge of this court in Lalitha Muralidharan v. Commissioner of Commercial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgments passed by the Division Bench of this court in OTA Nos.8 and 10 of 2013 as well as the judgment in OTA 5/2014, remains unchallenged. We do not think that a different attitude can be taken in the matter. Therefore we hold that, for the period till 30.08.2013, the date on which the impugned clarification was issued, the appellant will be governed by the situation as clarified in the earlier Circular dated 15.9.2007. 7. The learned Government Pleader further contended that there is a difference in the situation, because with respect to the appellants in OTA Nos.8 and 10 of 2013 and OTA 5/2014, they were granted refund on the basis of the earlier clarification and the question considered was only repayment of the amount already ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
