Tax waiver scheme and VAT transition: dealer could not collect and retain tax while claiming continuance of remission.

A dealer continuing under an earlier sales tax waiver scheme could not unilaterally collect and retain VAT during the transition under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. Section 33(1) deemed the earlier remission to continue as deferred payment for the unexpired period, but only in accordance with the statutory scheme and the governing eligibility conditions. Because the waiver arrangement required non-collection of tax, billing VAT while still claiming the waiver was inconsistent with the agreement, disrupted the VAT chain, and conflicted with the rules. The demand was upheld and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the introduction of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, a dealer continuing under an earlier sales tax waiver scheme could collect VAT on sales during the transition period and retain it, or whether such collection violated the terms of the eligibility certificate, agreement, and the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The earlier waiver arrangement under the industrial incentive scheme was subject to a condition that tax would not be collected on sales of the manufactured product. On the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, section 33(1) created a deeming fiction by which remission under the repealed sales tax regime would be treated as deferred payment for the unexpired period, but the proviso contemplated continuation of remission only on application and in accordance with the statutory scheme. The Court held that the petitioner's unilateral decision to bill VAT while still asserting continuance under the waiver scheme was inconsistent with that scheme. Rule 16(4) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 and the corresponding condition in rule 48A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 required non-collection of tax for remission to operate. Accepting the petitioner's position would break the VAT chain, permit dealers to claim input tax credit while the petitioner retained the tax, and create an anomalous split between waiver and deferral not contemplated by the statute or the agreement.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to collect and retain tax during the waiver period while seeking continuance of the waiver scheme. The impugned demand was upheld and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory deeming provision did not authorise unilateral collection of tax by a unit continuing under a waiver scheme, and the dealer's conduct amounted to violation of the governing conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer availing a tax waiver scheme cannot, without authority, collect tax during the waiver period on the plea of transition under section 33(1); the deeming fiction must be applied consistently with the statutory conditions that preserve the VAT chain and prohibit tax collection where remission is claimed.

---