TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly has to be effective from the date of inception of the Act itself, retrospectively. The respondents erred in effecting reversal of input tax credit - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P(MD)No.14038 of 2018 And W.M.P.(MD)No.12728 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-3-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice G.R.Swaminathan For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Rooban For Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan For the Respondents : Mr.G.Arjunan, Government Advocate. ORDER Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2.The petitioner is an assessee registered with the second respondent. The case on hand pertains to the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner's original assessment was deemed to have been completed as on 31.10.2012 under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions to sustain the impugned order. 4.I carefully considered the rival contentions. There can be no dispute that the issue on hand is squarely covered by the order dated 30.08.2019 in W.P.Nos.15130 of 2015 etc Batch (Bharath Traders vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another). In the said writ petition, the issue was framed in the following terms:- 7. The claim of the assessee/petitioner was that with the substitution of sub clause (v) of Section 19(2), the benefit of ITC was available in respect of inter-State transactions whether covered by CForm or not, in terms of both Section 8(1) and (2) of the CST Act. In short, the lis for consideration before me is 'whether the provisions of Section 19(2)(v) of the Tamil Nad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the manner in which transactions in terms of Section 8(2) pre and post 01.04.2015 are assessed to tax. 20. It is also not the case of the revenue that the amendment has been propelled in 2015 for a specific reason or logic and the inevitable conclusion I am led to is that legislature corrected an anamoly in 2015 by way of the amendment in question, bringing transactions under Section 8(2) also within the beneficial sweep of 19(2)(v). 21. Since the substitution in the present case only seeks to set right an anomaly it necessarily has to be effective from the date of inception of the Act itself, retrospectively. 6.Respectfully applying the ratio laid down above, I have to hold that the respondents erred in effecting revers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
