M/S.Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

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

¶13

1\5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P. Nos. 14333 to 14335 of 2013

¶16

in all WPs

¶17

Prayer in W.P. No. 14333 of 2013 : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Declaration declaring that Section 19(2)(ii) and Section 19(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 as discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 301 and 304(a) of the Constitution of India, not saved by Presidential assent under Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and, in any view, Section 19(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 as inapplicable to cases involving stock transfer of raw materials to a place outside the State for manufacture and return of manufactured goods into the State for sale within the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶18

Prayer in W.P. No. 14334 & 14335 of 2013 : Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the 1^st respondent herein in TIN.33720281723/2010-11 dated 23.04.2013 and TIN.33720281723/201112 dated 23.04.2013 and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner :: Ms.C. Rekha Kumari in all WPs For Respondents :: Mr.V. Prashanth Kiran in all WPs Govt. Advocate (Taxes)

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

(Made by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J.)

¶22

Both learned counsel would accede to the position that the issue raised is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the 2\5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P. Nos. 14333 to 14335 of 2013

¶25

case of Patina Gold Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner (ct), Park Road Circle, Erode and Another ( 2018 (50) GSTR 114). The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

¶26

...‘The facts which obtain in the present case, clearly, demonstrate, that ITC is not made available by the respondents, to those assessees who have had tax suffered raw materials such as bullion and / or worn out jewellery converted into final products (i.e. jewellery) by having them manufactured / processed in units situate outside the State of Tamil Nadu, even though, the final product is sold, upon payment of tax within the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶27

Therefore, having regard to the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that Section 19(2)(ii) of the 2006 Act is invalid to the extent that it denies availment of ITC in respect of those units which despatch tax suffered raw materials i.e. bullion / worn-out jewellery for conversion into final product (i.e. jewellery) outside the State which upon conversion are received back and sold within the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, according to us, the mere fact that the manufacturing unit is located outside the State of Tamil Nadu, cannot be the basis, for denial of ITC, under Section 19(1) of the 2006 Act. Clause (ii) of SubSection (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act is, thus, declared bad in law.

¶28

The writ petition is, thus, allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving parties to bear their own costs’

¶29

In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.

¶30

(A.S.M.J.) (C.K.J.)

¶31

nv 04.02.2025 To

¶32

The Commercial Tax Officer, (CT),

¶33

3\5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P. Nos. 14333 to 14335 of 2013

¶36

Peddunaickenpet (South) Assessment Circle, No.191, NSC Bose Road, Chennai – 1.

¶37

1. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, “Ezhilagam”, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶38

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

¶39

4\5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P. Nos. 14333 to 14335 of 2013

¶42

Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶43

AND

¶44

C. KUMARAPPAN,J.