Input tax credit reversal under VAT upheld as a valid revenue-protective measure, including retrospective operation.

Input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu VAT scheme is a statutory concession governed by the tax invoice and the conditions in the Act and Rules. Section 19(20), which requires reversal of excess credit where goods are resold below the purchase price, was construed as a revenue-protective measure within the State's taxing power and not as an impermissible levy; it was therefore upheld as constitutionally valid. The retrospective operation from 01.01.2007 was also sustained because retrospectivity in fiscal legislation is not invalid by itself, and no fresh tax, undue oppression, or confiscatory burden was shown. The challenge to the provision failed, while statutory remedies under the Act remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which requires reversal of excess input tax credit where goods are sold at a price lower than the purchase price, was beyond legislative competence or otherwise unconstitutional. (ii) Whether the retrospective operation of Section 19(20) from 01.01.2007 was unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive or confiscatory.

Issue (i): Whether Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which requires reversal of excess input tax credit where goods are sold at a price lower than the purchase price, was beyond legislative competence or otherwise unconstitutional.

Analysis: Input tax credit under the VAT scheme was treated as a statutory concession linked to the tax invoice and the statutory conditions for availing credit. The scheme under Section 3 and Section 19 made the original tax invoice the controlling document, and Section 19(16) recognised that credit is provisional and liable to correction. The expression "price" in Section 19(20) was construed with reference to the price reflected in the original tax invoice. The Court held that the impugned provision operated within Entry 54 of the State List because a taxing entry carries ancillary power to prevent tax evasion and protect revenue. Since the provision only required reversal of excess credit and did not create an impermissible levy, it was not confiscatory or ultra vires.

Conclusion: Section 19(20) was held to be within legislative competence and constitutionally valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective operation of Section 19(20) from 01.01.2007 was unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive or confiscatory.

Analysis: Retrospective fiscal legislation was examined on the settled principles that retrospectivity by itself is not invalid and that unreasonableness must be shown by additional factors such as discrimination, undue oppression, or unforeseeable burden. The retrospective amendment was found to be enacted to protect revenue arising from excess input tax credit accumulation during the VAT regime. The Court noted that no fresh tax was being imposed on vendors or consumers and that the amendment only required adjustment of credit lying with the dealer. In the absence of any demonstrated unforeseen burden or constitutional infirmity, the retrospective effect was upheld.

Conclusion: The retrospective operation of Section 19(20) was held to be valid and not oppressive or confiscatory.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the vires of Section 19(20) failed, and the connected reassessment challenges also could not survive. The statutory remedy under the Act was left open to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the VAT scheme, input tax credit is a statutory concession controlled by the tax invoice and the conditions prescribed by the Act and Rules, and the Legislature may validly require reversal of excess credit where the resale price is below the purchase price, including with retrospective effect, so long as the measure is within the taxing entry and is not confiscatory or unduly oppressive.

---