M/S.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 10205 Mad

                                                                                       W.P.No.23625 of 2014



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                       DATED : 21.04.2021

                                                             CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

                                                      W.P.No.23625 of 2014
                                                      and M.P.No.2 of 2014

                     M/s.Shree Ganesh Jewellery House Ltd.,
                     Rep., by its Manager, Mr.Manish Arora,
                     No.21, Ramaswamy Street,
                     T.Nagar, Chennai-17.                                                   .. Petitioner

                                                                -vs-

                     1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
                       Rep., by the Secretary to Government,
                       Commercial Taxes and Registration B(1)
                        Department,
                       Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

                     2.The Special Commissioner &
                         Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
                       “Ezhilagam”, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

                     3.The Assistant Commissioner (CT),
                       T.Nagar (South) Assessment Circle,
                       Chennai-600 028.                                                  .. Respondents

                                   Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
                     for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 3rd


                     Page 1 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   W.P.No.23625 of 2014



                     respondent herein in TIN.33491542898/2012-13 dated 31.03.2014 and
                     quash the same.

                                    For Petitioner     :      Ms.C.Rekha Kumari

                                    For Respondents    :      Mr.M.Hariharan,
                                                              Additional Government Pleader (T)


                                                           ******

                                                           ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to quash the

proceedings of the third respondent in TIN.33491542898/2012-13 dated

31.03.2014.

2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a

submission that the facts, as narrated in the present writ petition, are similar

to that of the facts already considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Patina Gold Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant

Commissioner (CT), Park Road Circle, Erode. The issue raised, regarding

the validity of the assessment order, has been decided in favour of the

assessee in the said case. The Hon'ble Division Bench has elaborately

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.23625 of 2014

considered the issue and the present writ petition is also falling under the

findings given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case cited

supra. The said case is reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 29013 and the

relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench are

extracted hereunder:-

“30. Therefore, having regard to the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that Section 19(2)(ii) of the 2006 Act is invalid to the extent that it denies availment of ITC in respect of those units which despatch tax suffered raw materials i.e. bullion / worn- out jewellery for conversion into final product (i.e. jewellery) outside the State which upon conversion are received back and sold within the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, according to us, the mere fact that the manufacturing unit is located outside the State of Tamil Nadu, cannot be the basis, for denial of ITC, under Section 19(1) of the 2006 Act. Clause (ii) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act is, thus, declared bad in law.

31. For the very same reason, we also hold that the respondents cannot retain ITC on goods purchased within the State, by invoking provision of Section 19(4)

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.23625 of 2014

of the 2006 Act to the extent of rate of tax provided therein i.e., 3% (which was the rate provided therein at the relevant point of time), as that would make the relief inefficacious since the subject goods i.e. bullion / worn-out jewellery on which tax credit was sought by the writ petitioner was imposed at the rate of 1%.

32. The writ petition is, thus, allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving parties to bear their own costs.”

3.In view of the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench, cited supra, the

present writ petition is to be considered.

4.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the third respondent in

proceedings in TIN.33491542898/2012-13 dated 31.03.2014 is quashed and

the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

21.04.2021

Index : Yes Speaking Order :Yes abr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.23625 of 2014

To

1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration B(1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, “Ezhilagam”, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3.The Assistant Commissioner (CT), T.Nagar (South) Assessment Circle, Chennai-600 028.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.23625 of 2014

S.M.Subramaniam, J.

(abr)

W.P.No.23625 of 2014

21.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/