TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... And M.P.No.2 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2021 - Honourable Mr.Justice S.M.Subramaniam For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For the Respondent : Mr.V.Veluchamy, Government Advocate ORDER The impugned order dated January, 2014 is challenged in this writ petition. 2.The core issue raised in this writ petition is whether the benefit of input tax credit is to be extended in respect of the transactions occurred prior to the issue of amendment in the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 2015. 3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that the amendment was effected by way of rectification of an anomaly and therefore, it cannot be construed as a new policy. Thus, the benefit of Input Tax Credit granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2015 only'. .............. 18. An understanding of the provisions of Section 8 of the CST Act, both sub-sections (1) and (2), is required, to examine the purpose of the substitution and to determine whether such substitution was intended to take effect from the date of inception of the enactment or the date of amending Act and the provision is thus extracted below: 8. Rates of tax on sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce.- (1) Every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, sells to a registered dealer goods of the description referred to in sub-section (3), shall be liable to pay tax under this Act, which shall be three percent, of his turnover or at the rate applicable to the sale or purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015. Having taken such a decision in principle, there is no rhyme or reason to restrict the benefit only from the date of substitution. Such restriction would discriminate against transactions under Section 8(2) for the prior period, apart from leading to a dichotomy 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
