M/s.Shanmuga Salt and v. The Assistant Commissioner
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court in tax writ petitions examined the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of input tax credit on 100% EOU sales under the TNVAT Act. The court held that while the dealer opted to adjust credit initially, the impugned orders denying refund were unsustainable and were set aside in part.
What did the court decide?
Impugned orders quashed; appeal filed within 30 days granted; miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.4722 & 4723 of 2015 and MP.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
M/s.Shanmuga Salt & Chemicals,
Rep. by its Proprietor – V.Rajamanickam, S/o. T.M.Velusamy, 49 years,
No.41, Cheran Street, Bhavani Main Road, Erode – 638 004.
... Petitioner in both WPs
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chithode Assessment Circle, Erode.
...Respondent in both WPs
Common Prayer: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in his impugned proceedings made in TIN 33593063027/07-08 and 08-09 respectively dated 13.01.2015 quash the same as illegal and contrary to the scheme of the Act.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an eligible dealer effecting 100% EOU sales who chooses to adjust Input Tax Credit instead of filing a refund claim under Section 18(2) can subsequently seek a refund application under that sa
Whether the impugned orders holding the petitioner not entitled to refund or adjust credit are sustainable when the dealer had adjusted credit prior to the demand.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Shanmuga Salt & Chemicals
- respondent
The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chithode Assessment Circle, Erode
Coram
C. Saravanan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court