Zero-rating under VAT must be read as a whole; SEZ supplies, circular validity, and mechanical penalties were addressed.

Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was treated as a complete zero-rating scheme, so input tax credit or refund for sales to SEZ units, developers or contractors was available only within that statutory framework and subject to its conditions. The Court rejected the argument that SEZ enactments created a separate VAT exemption or that Section 18(2) applied only to some zero-rated sales, and upheld the Commissioner's circular as consistent with the Act and not arbitrary. Penalty notices and orders were set aside because they were mechanical and lacked specific findings of wilful suppression. In connected matters, the Court granted limited relief by remand, revisionary direction, or liberty to pursue appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sale of goods and works contract supplies made to SEZ units, developers or contractors fall within Section 18(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and entitle the dealer to input tax credit or refund. (ii) Whether the Commissioner's circular treating such supplies as not zero-rated and linking them to the export condition in Section 18(2) is valid. (iii) Whether the consequential penalty proposals and penalty orders could stand. (iv) Whether the separate challenge to pre-revision notices and certain assessment orders required remand or other limited relief.

Issue (i): Whether sale of goods and works contract supplies made to SEZ units, developers or contractors fall within Section 18(1)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and entitle the dealer to input tax credit or refund.

Analysis: Section 18 deals with zero-rating as a complete scheme. The Court read sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) together and held that the three classes of zero-rated sales under Section 18(1) are not disjunctive. The benefit of input tax credit, which may ripen into refund, is available only within the framework of Section 18 and subject to the statutory restrictions. The Court rejected the contention that Section 18(2) applies only to clauses (i) and (iii) of Section 18(1), holding that such a construction would amount to inserting words into the statute. The plea that the SEZ enactments and notifications independently conferred the same fiscal benefit was also rejected because exemption under the SEZ regime is distinct from the zero-rating mechanism under the VAT Act.

Conclusion: The Court held that supplies to SEZ units do not get an independent exemption outside Section 18, and the statutory scheme claimed by the petitioners was not accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's circular treating such supplies as not zero-rated and linking them to the export condition in Section 18(2) is valid.

Analysis: The Court found that the circular only stated the statutory position and did not travel beyond the Act. It held that the petitioners' reading would rewrite the provision by severing Section 18(2) from the zero-rating scheme. The distinction between exemption and input tax credit was emphasized, and the SEZ framework was held not to override the VAT provisions in the manner suggested by the petitioners. The circular was therefore not treated as inconsistent with the Act or as arbitrary.

Conclusion: The circular was upheld as valid, intra vires and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iii): Whether the consequential penalty proposals and penalty orders could stand.

Analysis: The penalty notices and orders were found to be mechanical and unsupported by specific findings on deliberate suppression or wilful conduct. The Court held that penalty cannot be sustained without a clear jurisdictional foundation and a reasoned finding as to mens rea-like elements under the taxing statute.

Conclusion: The penalty proposals and penalty orders were set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether the separate challenge to pre-revision notices and certain assessment orders required remand or other limited relief.

Analysis: In the matters where only pre-revision notices were challenged, the petitioners were required to file objections and the assessing authority was directed to pass reasoned orders after hearing them. In the matters where assessment orders were challenged, the petitioners were given liberty to pursue appeals without the bar of limitation. In the two cases where ITC had been shown in the books but not availed, the petitioners were directed to seek revision of assessment under the statutory revisional provision. In the hot milk matters, the assessment orders were set aside and remitted for fresh consideration because the claim had not been properly examined.

Conclusion: The Court granted limited procedural relief by remand, appellate liberty, and revisionary directions in the specified matters.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned circular failed, but the penalty component was interfered with and certain connected matters were restored or remitted for fresh statutory consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A taxing provision granting zero-rating must be construed as a whole, and a court will not read into it a limitation or condition that the legislature did not express; exemption under a separate SEZ regime is distinct from the input tax credit mechanism under the VAT statute.

---