Madras High Court
M/S.Meenakshi Industries vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 3 September, 2021
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
M/s.Meenakshi Industries
rep by its Partner Jayesh Agarwal
S.R.No.9/2B, T.Pidaripattu Village,
T.V.Malai Main Road,
Thirumangalam Post, Villupuram Taluk. .. Petitioner in both WPs.
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner of (CT)
Villupuram – II Assessment Circle,
Master Plan Complex (Collector Office Complex),
Villupuram – 605 602. .. Respondent in both WPs.
PRAYER in WP.No.5704/2015: This Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records on the file of the respondent in
TIN:33944702340/2013-2014 dated 13.02.2015 and quash the same as
illegal, contrary to provisions of TNVAT Act and discriminatory and
violative of Article 14, 301 and 304 (a) of the Constitution of India.
PRAYER in WP.No.5705/2015: This Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records on the file of the respondent in CST.389639/2013-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/ 6
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
14 dated 13.02.3015 and quash the same as illegal and contrary to
provisions of the CST Act read with TNVAT Act and discriminatory and
violative of Article 14, 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Government Advocate
..in both WPs.
COMMON ORDER
The relief sought for in these present writ petitions are to quash the
proceedings of the respondent in TIN:33944702340/2013-2014 dated
13.02.2015 and CST.389639/2013-14 dated 13.02.3015
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a
submission that the facts, as narrated in the present writ petitions, 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 considered the issue and the present writ petition is also
falling under the findings given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/ 6
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
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) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/ 6
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
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 petitions are to be considered. In respect of the other
issues raised in these writ petitions, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer an
appeal in the manner prescribed under the provisions of the Act.
4.Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the respondent in
proceedings in TIN:33944702340/2013-2014 dated 13.02.2015 and
CST.389639/2013-14 dated 13.02.3015, are quashed and these writ
petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.09.2021
Speaking
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
Pns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/ 6
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
To
The Assistant Commissioner of (CT)
Villupuram – II Assessment Circle,
Master Plan Complex (Collector Office Complex),
Villupuram – 605 602.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5/ 6
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.,
Pns
W.P. Nos.5704 & 5705 of 2015
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
03.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
6/ 6
