9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OMMON ORDER Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is one and the same, with consent of both sides, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2.It is the case of the petitioners that, these petitioners are the dealers registered under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 [hereinafter referred to as "TNVAT Act" in short]. During the relevant period, the claim of ITC availed by them for their inputs, which they purchased and used in manufacturing industries respectively run by them, subsequently seems to have been reversed or not allowed by the respondent revenue / assessing authority on the ground of applying proviso to Section 19(2) (ii) & (vi) of the TNVAT Act. In Section 19(2) of the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be interfered with. 5.At the outset, the learned counsel for all these petitioners have submitted that the issues raised in these writ petitions have already been confronted in M/s.Everest Industries Limited vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department and another, dated 06.02.2017 made in W.P.No.7969 of 2014 etc., batch, reported in 2017 (100) VST 158 (Mds). By relying upon this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, since it has been held that the said judgment in Everest Industries case cited supra that if the manufacturer who claimed that they have purchased inputs, which are referred to in First Schedule of 2006 Act in respect of which, tax has been paid and tax suffer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had already been covered by a decision of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in M/s.Everest Industries Limited vs. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Tax Department and another, dated 06.02.2017 made in W.P.No.7969 of 2014 etc., batch, reported in 2017 (100) VST 158 (Mds). 4.I have heard the learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondent also, he would submit that whether this judgment referred to in Everest case has been further appealed or not, is to be ascertained, but any how, if at all, the said judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, and if ultimately, if any further appeal has been filed as against the judgment in Everest Industries Limited case, the same case has to be met by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed." 10.In view of the said position, where the issue has been settled as early as in the year 2017 in the aforestated Everest Industries case cited supra that proviso in question cannot be made applicable to the category of dealers industries or manufacturers like the petitioners and therefore, they are entitled to get full credit of ITC. Therefore, such a reversal is not possible by applying the said proviso by deducting 3 percent. 11.Therefore, this Court feels that, all these impugned orders are liable to be interfered with, as that was passed only by making application applying the proviso referred to above under Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act. Therefore, all these writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
