Madras High Court
The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) vs M/S.R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar on 29 April, 2022
W.A.No.1221 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.A. No.1221of 2022
and
C.M.P. No. 7768 of 2022
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Kangeyam .. Appellant
Versus
M/s.R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar,
Represented by its Partner,
A. Sankaranarayanan .. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
passed by this Court in W.P. No.16003 of 2017, dated 18.09.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
Government Advocate (Taxes)
For Respondent : Mr.B.Raveendran
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN,J.]
This writ appeal arises from the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the
learned Judge in WP.No.16003 of 2017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1221 of 2022
2.According to the appellant / Revenue, the respondent / assessee is a
registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,
2006. They filed the return for the assessment year 2014-15, which was
assessed under section 22(2) of the TNVAT Act and a notice came to be issued
proposing to reverse the Input Tax Credit availed by them. Upon receipt of the
objections to the said notice, from the respondent / assessee, the assessing
officer passed the assessment order dated 29.05.2017. Challenging the same,
the respondent / assessee preferred WP.No.16003 of 2017, along with
WP.Nos.16000, 16001 and 16004 of 2017 relating to other assessment years,
stating that the assessing officer erred in reversing ITC under section 19(2)(v)
of the TNVAT Act, 2006, when the respondent / assessee has used only
exempted raw materials and raw materials purchased from outside the State in
the manufacture of goods that were sold inter-state; and the assessing officer
also erred in ignoring the fact that the proviso to Section 19(2) of the TNVAT
Act, 2006 clearly states that it will apply only in cases falling under section
19(2)(v) of the Act and therefore, the same will apply only when local tax
suffered goods are purchased for the purpose of sale under section 8(1) of the
CST Act, 1956. By order dated 18.09.2017, the learned Judge disposed of the
said writ petitions by setting aside the assessment order and remanding the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1221 of 2022
matter to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Aggrieved over the same,
the appellant / Revenue is before this court with this writ appeal.
3.Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned
Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the appellant / Revenue as well as
the learned counsel for the respondent / assessee jointly submitted that the issue
involved herein has already been considered by judgment dated 31.03.2022
passed in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 etc. batch. and hence, this writ appeal may be
disposed of in the same lines.
4.In view of the above, this writ appeal is disposed of, in terms of the
earlier judgment of this court dated 31.03.2022 in WA.No.1260 of 2017 etc.
batch. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.]
29.04.2022
msr/gba
Index:Yes/no
Internet:Yes/No
To
The Assistant Commissioner (CT)
Kangeyam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1221 of 2022
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
msr/gba
W.A. No.1221 of 2022
and
C.M.P. No. 7768 of 2022
29.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
