Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Tvl.Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. ... vs The Assistant Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 11836 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11836 Mad
Judgement Date : 17 June, 2021

Madras High Court
Tvl.Srei Equipment Finance Pvt. ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 17 June, 2021
                                              W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to
                                                     38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                             DATED: 17.06.2021

                                                  CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                            W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to 38520
                                     & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017
                                           and M.P.No.1 of 2015
                                and W.M.P.Nos.24631, 32378, 32379, 32999
                                      & 33000 to 33004, 37788 of 2016
                                        and W.M.P.No.2490 of 2017

                 W.P.No.40116 of 2015

                 Tvl.SREI Equipment Finance Pvt. Ltd.,
                 Represented by the Authorized
                       signatory/Associate Vice-President,
                 Rajesh Kumar Dhawan,
                 290, Peters Road,
                 Chennai 600 014.                                        .. Petitioner

                                                     Vs.

                 The Assistant Commissioner,
                 Royapettah Assessment Circle,
                 Station: 46, Greenways Road,
                 Chennai 600 028.                                         .. Respondent


                 Prayer in W.P.No.40116/2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
                 Consitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records
                 comprised in impugned order in TIN No.33060721690/2013-14 dated
                 15.10.2015 on the file of the respondent herein and quash the same.


                    ___
                    1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to
                                                       38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017



                                     (In W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784,
                                          38518 to 38520 and 2521 of 2017)

                                     For Petitioner     : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
                                                          (Senior Counsel)
                                                          for M/s.Mohammed Shaffiq

                                     For Respondent     : Mr.V.Veluchamy
                                                          (Government Advocate)

                                           (In W.P.No.43963 of 2016)

                                     For Petitioner     : Mr.N.Viswanathan

                                     For Respondent     : Mr.V.Veluchamy
                                                          (Government Advocate)


                                          COMMON            ORDER



                          The two Writ Petitions in W.P.No.28526 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017 are

                 filed challenging the notices dated 27.07.2016 and 14.12.2016 respectively.

                 The other Writ Petitions are filed challenging the assessment orders.



                          2.The core issue raised in all these Writ Petitions are 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.



                    ___
                    2/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                  W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to
                                                         38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

                          3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

                 mainly contended that the amendment was effected by way of rectification of

                 an anomaly and therefore, cannot be construed as a new policy. Thus, the

                 benefit of Input Tax Credit granted pursuant to the amendment is to be

                 extended so as to cover the transactions took place prior to the insertion of the

                 amendment.



                          4.The learned Senior Counsel contended that the issue involved in these

                 Writ Petitions were already dealt with elaborately by the Madurai Bench of

                 the      Madras   High   Court    in   a   batch   of Writ   Petitions   led    by

                 W.P.(MD).No.15103 of 2015 and the said judgment was pronounced on

                 30.08.2019. Further, the respondent department has also not preferred any

                 further appeal challenging the said judgment and therefore, the judgment

                 became final and the said benefit is to be extended to all these petitioners.



                          5.The learned counsel for the respondent could not be able to object the

                 said contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners. Thus, this Court is

                 inclined to follow the decision in the case cited supra. The relevant paragraphs

                 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:


                    ___
                    3/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                        W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to
                                                               38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017


                                  " 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 C-Form 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 Nadu Value Added
                          Tax Act, 2006 as amended by the Tamil Nadu
                          Value Added Tax Act (Amendment Act, 2015) are
                          retrospective               and     would         apply        to    earlier
                          periods of assessment or prospective, applying
                          to the period commencing 01.04.2015 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

___

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to 38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State, whichever is lower: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, reduce the rate of tax under this sub-section. (2) The tax payable by any dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce not falling within subsection (1), shall be at the rate applicable to the sale or purchase of such goods inside the appropriate State under the sales tax law of that State.

19. Section 8(1) of the CST Act provides the benefit of concessional rate of tax, upon production of a statutory Declaration form, to an interstate transaction with a registered dealer, and relating to specified goods. Section 8(2) stipulates that an interstate transaction with an unregistered dealer shall be visited with the same rate of tax as applicable to a domestic transaction involving identical goods. While Section 19(2)(v) extended input tax credit in respect of the transaction under Section 8(1), the same benefit was unavailable to the identical transaction with an unregistered dealer, taxable in terms of Section 8(2) of the CST Act. Though the benefit of ITC was initially restricted as an inducement to dealers to

___

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to 38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

transact with registered dealers alone, Legislature has broadened, in its wisdom, the grant of benefit of ITC to transactions with unregistered dealers as well, albeit in 2015. 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 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.

22. These Writ Petitions are allowed and the issue framed for resolution is answered in favour of the petitioners. No costs. Connected

Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."

___

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to 38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

6.In view of the ratio laid down in the judgment cited supra, the

impugned orders in all these Writ Petitions are quashed and the Writ Petitions

are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are

closed.

17.06.2021 gsa Index : Yes Speaking Order

To The Assistant Commissioner, Royapettah Assessment Circle, Station: 46, Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028.

___

http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to 38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

gsa

W.P.Nos.40116 of 2015, 28526, 37784, 38518 to 38520 & 43963 of 2016 and 2521 of 2017

17.06.2021

___

http://www.judis.nic.in

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter