TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes orders, remands for fresh consideration. Importance of factual review stressed.</h1> <h3>M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT),</h3> M/s. Mahaveer Trading Company Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), - TMI Issues involved:Interpretation of tax law regarding input tax credit on DEPB licenses under the TNVAT Act, applicability of legal precedents, consideration of advance ruling, assessment period limitation.Analysis:Issue 1: Interpretation of tax law regarding input tax credit on DEPB licenses under the TNVAT ActThe petitioner, a registered dealer in export/import licenses, claimed input tax credit under Section 19(1) of the TNVAT Act on purchases of DEPB licenses. The respondent disputed this claim, arguing that DEPB licenses do not fall under the First Schedule of the TNVAT Act, making them ineligible for input tax credit. The respondent relied on a previous court decision to support their stance. The petitioner, however, contended that the DEPB licenses should be considered as goods under Entry 70 of Part B of the First Schedule. The petitioner also referenced a Delhi High Court decision and a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to support their argument.Issue 2: Applicability of legal precedentsThe respondent cited a court decision to assert that DEPB licenses are not eligible for input tax credit. The petitioner argued that this decision did not consider the specific provision in the TNVAT Act and should be deemed as per incuriam, making it non-binding. The petitioner also highlighted their participation in a personal hearing, where they presented their objections and arguments. The Court noted that the respondent failed to consider crucial aspects, such as the advance ruling under Section 48-A of the TNVAT Act, which should have been binding on the assessing officer.Issue 3: Consideration of advance ruling and assessment period limitationThe petitioner raised the issue of assessment period limitation for the years 2007-08 to 2010-11, stating that the re-opening of assessment after five years was barred. However, the respondent did not address this point in the impugned orders. The Court emphasized the importance of re-considering the matter afresh, taking into account all factual issues, including the advance ruling, clarification by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the assessment period limitation. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and remanded the matters to the respondent for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner's representative.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by the parties, and the Court's decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
