2013 (8) TMI 606 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds constitutionality of Section 19(20) of TN VAT Act, 2006, retroactive application.

Jayam & Co., represented by its Partner, S. Jayaprakash And Others Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) And Others

The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as amended, and its retrospective application from ... Legislative Competence to Amend Section 19(20) - Whether amendment by inserting Section 19(20) to Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax reversing the amount of the input tax credit over and above the output tax of those credit was not within the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Entry 54 of the State List and utravires the Constitution and the Statute - Held that:- There was no ambiguity in the provision, the provision does not go beyond the legislative power of the State legislature under Entry 54 of List II nor the provision was confiscatory as contended by the petitioner - The provision starts with non-obstante clause and would state that where any registered dealer has sold goods at a price lesser than the price of the goods purchased by him the amount of input tax credit over and above the output tax of those goods shall be reversed. Section 19(20) the only plausible meaning to the word 'price' used therein shall be the price /value as reflected in the tax invoice - Any other interpretation given would not be in consonance with the scheme of the VAT Act -Therefore, the correct manner in which sub-section (20) of Section 19 had to be read is that where any registered dealer had sold goods at a price lesser than the price of the goods purchased by him as reflected in the original tax invoice as defined under Section 2 (36) of the Act, then the amount of input tax credit over and above the output tax of those goods has to be reversed. Constitutional Validity of fiscal legislation - When there was a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of a Statute, Court exercising power of judicial review must be conscious of the limitation of judicial intervention, particularly, in matters relating to the legitimacy of the economic or fiscal legislation - While enacting fiscal legislation, the Legislature was entitled to a great deal of latitude. Validity of Retrospective Amendment - Whether amendment to Section 19(20) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act by giving retrospective effect from 01.01.2007 was unreasonable and harsh and whether retrospective operation of the provision was liable to be struck down - There was no discrimination in the matter and the manner of giving effect to the legislation and it applies to all dealers covered under the VAT Act - Held that:- Section 19 (20) was inserted in order to safe guard the interest of the revenue - Section 19(20) as amended by Amendment Act 22 of 2010, was a valid piece of legislation and the amendment given retrospective effect with effect from 01.01.2007, by Amending Act 42 of 2010, cannot be struck down as being either unreasonable, discriminatory or causing any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden for the past period nor unduly oppressive or confiscatory - Accordingly Constitutional validity of the impugned enactment was upheld. The factors which are generally considered relevant for examining the reasonableness of retrospectivity - the context in which retrospectivity was contemplated, the period of such retrospectivity and the degree of any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden imposed for the past period - The taxing statute may arise in which retrospective operation of a taxing or other statute may introduce an element of unreasonableness and the same may be open to challenge as unconstitutional - But the test of length of time covered by the retrospective operation cannot by itself necessary be a decisive test. There was no intention on the part of the respondents to collect tax either from the vendor or from the consumers and it was aimed at recovery of tax available with the writ petitioner which was admitted by the petitioners to be retained by them, the amendment given effect to retrospectively does not cause any unforeseen or unforeseeable financial burden for the past period – Petition Dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2010.2. Validity of retrospective application of Section 19(20) from 01.01.2007.3. Legality of reassessment orders/show cause notices issued under Section 27 of the Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Constitutionality of Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 2010Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as amended by the Second Amendment Act of 2010, mandates the reversal of input tax credit (ITC) if goods are sold at a price lower than their purchase price. Petitioners argued that this provision is confiscatory, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They contended that the discount received from vendors post-invoice should reduce the purchase price, and thus, the ITC should not be reversed.The court held that VAT is a modern tax system designed to provide set-offs for taxes paid earlier, ensuring that the tax burden is ultimately borne by the consumer. The tax invoice is crucial in the VAT regime, and any discount offered post-invoice should not affect the tax component indicated in the original tax invoice. The court found that Section 19(20) is a valid legislative measure to prevent revenue loss due to excess ITC claims and is within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of the State List. The provision is not confiscatory as it only reverses excess ITC and does not impose any additional tax burden.Issue 2: Validity of Retrospective Application of Section 19(20) from 01.01.2007The retrospective application of Section 19(20) was challenged on the grounds that it imposes an unforeseen financial burden and is unreasonable. The court noted that the legislative power to impose tax includes the power to legislate retrospectively. The retrospective effect from 01.01.2007 was necessary to address revenue loss due to excess ITC claims. The court held that the retrospective amendment does not impose any fresh tax but only adjusts the ITC already claimed, making it reasonable and not unduly oppressive.Issue 3: Legality of Reassessment Orders/Show Cause Notices Issued Under Section 27 of the ActPetitioners challenged the reassessment orders and show cause notices issued under Section 27 of the Act, arguing that they were based on the invalid Section 19(20). Since the court upheld the constitutionality and retrospective application of Section 19(20), the reassessment orders and show cause notices were found to be valid. The court directed petitioners to avail statutory remedies available under the Act for any grievances related to these orders.Conclusion:The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, as amended, and its retrospective application from 01.01.2007. The provision was found to be a valid legislative measure to prevent revenue loss due to excess ITC claims and not violative of constitutional provisions. The reassessment orders and show cause notices issued under Section 27 of the Act were also upheld, with petitioners directed to seek statutory remedies for any grievances. The writ petitions were dismissed, and interim stays were vacated.