M/S.Thangam Metal Cans v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :08.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.4029 to 4031 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2 and 2 of 2015 W.P.No.4029 of 2015 M/s.Thangam Metal Cans Private Limited Rep.by its Managing Director, 17 & 26, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in CST.876310/2013-14 and quash the order dated 23.12.2014 passed therein in so far as the issue of "ITC reversal of 3% for the interstate sales covered by "C" forms" is concerned and further direct the 2nd respondent not to apply Section 2 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Fifth Amendment) Act, 2013 to the W.P.No.4030 of 2015 M/s.Thangam Tin Cans Private Limited Rep.by its Managing Director, 21, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in CST.876309/2013-14 and quash the order dated 23.12.2014 passed therein in so far as the issue of "ITC reversal of 3% for the interstate sales covered by "C" forms" is concerned and further direct the 2nd respondent not to apply Section 2 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Fifth Amendment) Act, 2013 to the W.P.No.4031 of 2015 M/s.Ariba Plasti Cans Rep.by its Managing Director, 23, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081
...Petitioner
Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in CST.957431/2013-14 and quash the order dated 23.12.2014 passed therein in so far as the issue of "ITC reversal of 3% for the interstate sales covered by "C" forms" is concerned and further direct the 2nd respondent not to apply Section 2 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Fifth Amendment) Act, 2013 to the
For Petitioner : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan [in all W.Ps] For Respondent : Mr.V.Veluchamy Government Advocate [For R1 & R2] [in all W.Ps] COMMON ORDER Today, the matter is called through Video-Conferencing. By consent of both the parties, these Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal.
2. The common issue involved in these writ petitions, challenging the finding of the Assessing Authority that there is no discrimination of manufacturer or trader in providing restriction to Input Tax Credit, has already been considered by this Court in the decision in Everest Industries Limited Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in (2017) 100 VST 158 (Mad) in the following manner:
"20. A careful reading of Section 19 would show that a dealer is entitled to claim ITC in respect of tax suffered inputs, which are specified in the First Schedule, and are purchased within the State from a registered dealer, and therefore, are used for the purpose set out in the clauses (i) to (vi), as delineated in sub section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act.
20.1. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 19 limits the availment of ITC by providing that ITC shall be allowed in excess of 3% of the tax for the purpose specified in clause (v). Clause (v), if read with subsection (2) of Section 19 would have me conclude that, if, an assessee were to purchase taxable goods specified in the First Schedule, which were sold in the course of Inter-State Trade or Commerce against declarations made in form 'C', an assessee would be allowed ITC only in excess of 3% of the tax paid on such purposes.
20.2. Therefore, there is, no my mind, nothing in the proviso, which will have me come to the conclusion that, it is attracted to any of the other clause referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act."
3. The aforesaid extract is self explanatory. As such, the
finding of the authority that there is no discrimination of a manufacturer or trader under Section 19(2) of the TNVAT Act, is opposed to the aforesaid decision and hence, cannot be sustained.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated 23.12.2014 passed by the second respondent are quashed and accordingly, all the writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Kak To 1.The Secretary, +1cc to Mr.L.MuraliKrishnan, Advocate, S.R.No.23342 +1cc to Special the Government Pleader (Taxes), S.R.No.32687, 32686, 32685 W.P.Nos.4029 to 4031 of 2015 RLD(CO) SB(04/08/2021)