Partly allowed

M/s.The Standard Chemical v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

Madras HC26 Apr 2017WP/14624/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an assessment order regarding Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversals. The Court held that the issue under Section 19(2)(v) was covered by a prior judgment and must be redone. The Court allowed the petition in part, remitting assessment for Section 19(2)(v) and exempted SEZ sales, while upholding the assessment under Section 19(5)(c).

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed in part; impugned order set aside regarding ITC reversal under Section 19(2)(v) and exempted sales; matter remitted to Assessing Officer for redoing assessment within four we

M/s.The Standard Chemical Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:26.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No. 14624 of 2015

¶6

and

¶7

M.P.No. 1 of 2015

¶8

M/s The Standard Chemical Company Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Kushagra Singhania, No.5/11-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu,

¶12

Rep. by the Secretary to Government,

¶13

Commercial Taxes and Registration Department,

¶14

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

¶16

Pattravakkam Assessment Circle,

¶17

No.5, 1^st High Court Colony,

¶18

Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. ...Respondents

¶19

Prayer:

¶20

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in CST.46531/2013-2014 dated 06.04.2015 and quash the same.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr. T. Pramodkumar Chopda For Respondents : Mr. K. Venkatesh,

¶22

Government Advocate

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This Writ Petition is filed against the order of assessment dated 06.04.2015 passed in respect of assessment year 2013-14.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The assessing order was passed, based on three issues,

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

viz., Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal made under section 19(2) (v); under section 19(5)(c) and on exempted sales.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as the issue concerning the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal under section 19(5)(c) of the TNVAT Act, 2006, the petitioner is not pressing the writ petition. Likewise, he further submitted that insofar as the issue concerning the ITC reversal made for exempted Sales (SEZ Sales) is concerned, he submitted that the petitioner is entitled to such reversal, since those sales are SEZ sales and therefore the Assessing Officer can be directed to re-consider the issue once again. The learned counsel submitted that insofar as the ITC reversal made under Section 19(2)(v) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 is concerned, the matter may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer, since the said issue is already covered by the decision of this Court made in WP.No.7969 of 2014 dated 06.02.2017.

¶30

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents is not disputing the fact that the issue in respect of ITC reversal under section 19(2)(v) is covered by the above said decision of this court. He also submitted that the Assessing Officer will re-consider the issue viz., the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal made for exempted sales (SEZ Sales).

¶31

Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and considering the fact that one of the issue viz., the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reversal under section 19(2)(v) is covered by the decision of this Court made in WP.No.7969 of 2014 dated 06.02.2017, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment after hearing the petitioner in person as well. However the assessment made insofar as the ITC reversal under Section 19(5)(c) is concerned, the assessment stands. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order of assessment is set aside insofar as it relates to ITC reversal under Section 19(2)(v) and exempted sales (SEZ sales) are concerned. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for redoing the assessment after hearing the petitioner in person as well as by taking note of the decision made by this Court in WP.No.7969 of 2014 dated 06.02.2017. Such exercise shall be done by the Assessing Officer within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

-s/d-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(CSII)

¶34

True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶35

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

¶38

The State of Tamil Nadu, The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶39

The Assistant Commissioner (CT),

¶40

Pattravakkam Assessment Circle,

¶41

No.5, 1^st High Court Colony,

¶42

Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶43

+1 cc to the Special Government Pleader Taxes sr 25463 +1 cc to Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda Advocate sr 25486

¶44

W.P.No. 14624 of 2015
rj(co)
aa04/05/2017

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.The Standard Chemical v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.The Standard Chemical v. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner(Ct)

Tvl.Shri Ramana Medicals Vs The Assistant Commissioner

S.Thajudeen, Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)

Sivakumar Vs The District Collector

M/s.Lalith Corrugating Pvt. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R.Panchamirtham, S/o.Raj, Vs The District Collector