Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M/S.Avr Swarnamahal Jewellery ... on 8 April, 2022
1 W.A.No.1079 & 1084 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.Nos.1079 & 1084 of 2022
and CMP.Nos.6708, 2480, 3104 and 6723 of 2022
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by the Secretary to Government
Commercial Taxes & Registration (B1) Department
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
"Ezhilagam" Chepauk,
Chennai 600 005.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Arisipalayam Assessment Circle,
Salem. ...Appellants
in both W.As
Vs
M/s.AVR Swarnamahal Jewellery Private Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director,
No.251-A, Omalur Main Road,
Swarnapuri, Salem - 4. ... Respondent
in both W.As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2 W.A.No.1079 & 1084 of 2022
Common Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter
Patent praying to allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated
13.07.2018 in W.P.Nos.7710 & 7711 of 2010.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Siddharth
Govt.Advocate (Tax)
in both appeals
For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajkumar
in both appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
N.MALA, J.
These appeals have been preferred against the common order dated
10.07.2018 in W.P.Nos.6932 & 6933 of 2010.
2. W.P.No.7710 of 2010 has been filed by the respondent herein to
declare Section 19(2) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006
(hereinafter shortly referred to as “the TNVAT Act”) as discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14, 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India not
saved by Presidential Assent under Article 304(b) of the Constitution of
India, whereas W.P.No.7711 of 2010 has been filed to quash the notice
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
dated 05.04.2010 issued by the third respondent invoking Section 19(2) (ii)
of the Act, whereby the writ petitioner was directed to pay a sum of
Rs.12,79,216/- on the ground that they have wrongly availed Input Tax
Credit under Section 19(2) (ii) of the TNVAT Act.
3. It was submitted by the respondent and also by the appellants
herein that the issue stands decided against the State Government in the
matter of Patina Gold Ornaments Pvt. Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner
(CT), Park Road Circle, Erode and another (2018) 50 GSTR 114 (Mad. It
was also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the
State intends to file a Review petition and therefore these writ appeals may
be dismissed and liberty may be given to the State to file a Review Petition.
4. Since the issue involved is covered by the decision in Patina Gold
Ornaments Pvt. Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT), Park Road
Circle, Erode and another (2018) 50 GSTR 114 Mad), the present appeals
are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these writ appeals are
dismissed, however liberty is granted to the State to file Review Petition, if
so advised and in the event the Review Petition is admitted and the State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
succeeds, the State is at liberty to reopen the assessment in accordance with
law.
4. Accordingly these writ appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
(S.V.N.J.,) (N.M.J.,)
08.04.2022
dpq
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
N.MALA, J.
dpq
W.A.Nos.1079 & 1084 of 2022
08.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
