TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for interpreting law dealing with economic activities. While doing so, the Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench in RK. GARG VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein it was held that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. It was further held that the legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any Doctrinaire or straight jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, larger play has to be allowed to the legislature. In the ALD Automotive Private Limited an alternate submission was made on behalf of the assessee that Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act cannot be held to be mandatory and it is only a directory provision non-compliance with which cannot be a ground of denial of Input Tax Credit to the appellant therein. After noting the conditions enumerated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or passing any interim order and issue involved in the writ petition requires affidavit from the respondent for final adjudication. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within a time frame and the writ petition as directed to be listed for hearing. 2. Mr. Vinay Shraff, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that though this appeal is against an order refusing to grant interim orders, requested this Court to hear the writ petition as well as questions of law are involved in the writ petition and may not even require an affidavit to be filed by the respondent. Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that one opportunity may be granted to the respondents to file their affidavit-in- opposition which request was granted by order dated 23.06.2023 and after the affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent, the appeal as well as the writ petition were heard and are now disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging an order-in-appeal dated 04.01.2023 and sought for a consequential direction upon the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 confirmed the order passed by the second respondent holding that the statute has set a time frame within which the appellant can avail and utilize input tax credit and the appellant having done so beyond the time limit i.e. 20.10.2019 is not entitled for the ITC. 5. We have elaborately heard Mr. Vinay Shraff, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant assisted by Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, learned Additional Government Pleader assisted by Mr. T. Chakraborty and Mr. S Sanyal for the respondent department. 6. The appellant s case is that they had submitted the returns in GSTR-3B for the period from November, 2018 to March, 209 on 20.10.2019 which is admittedly beyond the due date of submission of the return for the month of September, 2019. The department s contention is that the returns having been filed beyond the statutory time limit the appellant becomes ineligible for Input Tax Credit and consequently he has to reverse the credit taken and having wilfully mis-stated the particulars and availed the benefit they are liable to pay penalty. The contention of the appellant is that Input Tax Credit is not taken through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nserted it. Non-obstante clause is employed to give overriding effect to some contrary provision but not complementary provision. It is enacted to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict and overriding effect over the provision of the Act or the contract mentioned in the non-obstante clause. The language of Section 16 is clear that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not in any manner limit the operation of Section 16(3) or Section 16(4) and they are not contradicting, rather they all being to restrict the provisions, are basically complementing each other and are limiting the scope and operation of Section 16(4). Further, it is submitted that the legislative intent is not to make Section 16(4) otiose by applying Section 16(2) of the Act. Conjoint reading of Section 16(2)(d) and Section 16(4) make it clear that the entitlement to the credit of any Input Tax in respect of any supply of goods or services or both arises after filing of return under Section 39 of the Act. This condition is further qualified by imposing a time limit under Section 16(4). Admittedly, in the case of the appellant the returns were filed well beyond the period stipulated under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... man rights are involved. The Hon ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in Kailash Chandra Versus Mukundi Lal (2002) 2 SCC 678 wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court held that a provision in the statute is not to be read in isolation. It has to be read with other related provisions in the Act itself more particularly, when the subject matter dealt with in difference sections or parts of the same statute is the same or similar in nature. After pointing out about how a taxation statute has to be interpreted, the Hon ble Supreme Court proceeded to examine the provisions of the concern statute and held that input tax credit is in the nature of benefit/concession extended to the dealers under the statutory scheme. The concession can be received by the beneficiary only as per the scheme of the statute. Reference was made to the decision in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Private Limited Versus CST (1992) 3 SCC 624 wherein the court held that the rule making authority can provide curtailment while extending a concession. Reference was made to the decision in India Agencies Versus CCT (2005) 2 SCC 129 wherein it was held that when the rules prescribes the procedure to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idity of Section 19(20) was upheld. The above decision is a clear authority with proposition that Input Tax Credit is admissible only as per conditions enumerated Under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The interpretation put up by this Court on Section 3(2) and 3(3) and Section 19(2) is fully attracted while considering the same provisions of Section 3(2) and 3(3) and provision of Section 19(11) of the Act. The Statutory scheme delineated by Section 19(11) neither can be said to be arbitrary nor can be said to violate the right guaranteed to the dealer Under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. We thus do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court upholding the validity of Section 19(11) of the Act. Both the issues are answered accordingly. 10. In the ALD Automotive Private Limited an alternate submission was made on behalf of the assessee that Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act cannot be held to be mandatory and it is only a directory provision non-compliance with which cannot be a ground of denial of Input Tax Credit to the appellant therein. After noting the conditions enumerated in Section 19 of the said Act, it was h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ery recently, the Hon ble Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had considered an identical case as that of the case on hand, wherein a pari materia provision under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax, 2017 namely Section 16(4) of the Act was considered in a challenge to its validity on the ground that it violates Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India; whether the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) of the APGST, CGST Act, 2017 would prevail Section 16(4) of the APGST/CGST Act, 2017. 12. The argument advanced before us by the learned Advocate for the appellant were identical to that of the arguments which were placed by the petitioners/assessee in the said case and the same was rejected, in our view rightly on the ground that Section 16(2) prescribes, the eligibility criteria which is mandatory and in the absence of fulfillment of the eligibility criteria the dealer will not be entitled to claim ITC. We are in the respectful agreement with the view expressed. The contention that non obstante clause in the Sub Section(2) of Section 16 overrides the other provisions namely Section 16(4) was canvassed before the court which was also rightly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
