Section 23 TVAT procedure limited to the assessee's own pending identical legal issue; reassessment challenge failed on binding precedent.

Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 applies only where the assessee's own pending case before the assessing authority involves an identical question of law to another pending case of the same assessee before the High Court or Supreme Court; absent such a pending superior-court case, the procedure cannot be invoked and the request for liberty to file a declaration was rejected. A challenge to reassessment under section 19(20) also failed because the provision had already been upheld by a Division Bench, and that binding ruling governed the dispute. The writ petitions were dismissed and the reassessment orders were left intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could invoke the procedure under section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on the ground that an identical question of law was pending before a superior court in another case. (ii) Whether the reassessment orders based on section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were liable to be set aside.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could invoke the procedure under section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 on the ground that an identical question of law was pending before a superior court in another case.

Analysis: Section 23(1) applies only when the assessee's own case for an assessment year pending before the assessing authority involves a question of law identical to a question of law arising in another case of the same assessee that is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court. On the admitted facts, there was no pending case of the assessee for an earlier assessment year before the High Court or the Supreme Court involving such identical question.

Conclusion: The assessee could not invoke section 23, and the request for liberty to file a declaration under that provision was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment orders based on section 19(20) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The challenge to the reassessment orders was founded on the alleged uncertainty of section 19(20). The provision had already been upheld by a Division Bench, and that binding decision governed the issue.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment orders failed, and the impugned orders were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable on the grounds urged and were dismissed, leaving the reassessment orders intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is available only when the assessee's own pending case involves an identical question of law with another pending case of the same assessee before a superior court, and a challenge to reassessment cannot succeed where the statutory provision relied upon has already been upheld.

---