High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition challenging provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007. The court relied on a prior decision (USA Agencies v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2013) that upheld the provisions against constitutional challenges.
The writ petition stands dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH
Writ Petition No.3973 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015
M/s.Saravana Electronic Goods and Appliances, rep. By its Proprietrix
S.SasirekhaMathavi Complex, No.67-A, East Main Road, Mettur, Mettur dam,
Salem District – 636 401.
.. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that Sections 19(1), 19 (10)(a) and 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 are inconsistent with the charging Section 3 and the general scheme of annual assessment under Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and further void as being arbitrary and irrational, infringing the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and the resultant proposal to reverse the input tax credit invoking Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act as violative of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Hemalatha For Respondents: Mr.Kanmani Annamalai Government Advocate
O R D E R
(Made by R.SUDHAKAR,J.)
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring that Sections 19(1), 19(10)(a) and 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 are inconsistent with the charging Section 3 and the general scheme of annual assessment under Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2007, and further void as being arbitrary and irrational, infringing the rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and the resultant proposal to reverse the input tax credit invoking Section 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act as violative of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Sections 19(1), 19(10)(a) and 19(11) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and Rule 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 are inconsistent with the charging Section 3 and t
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
USA Agencies v. The Commercial Tax OfficerFollowed¶17
USA Agencies v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 2013 (5) CTC 63
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Saravana Electronic Goods and Appliances, rep. By its Proprietrix S.Sasirekha Mathavi
The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Omalur
R.Sudhakar
R.Karuppiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
