Input tax credit refund claims must be reconsidered on merits where earlier interpretation remains unstayed despite pending appeals.

A prior interpretation of the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 confined the input tax credit restriction to transactions covered by clause (v), not to the other purposes listed in Section 19(2). Mere pendency of an appeal did not suspend that ruling because no interim stay had been shown. The Madras High Court therefore directed fresh consideration of the petitioner's refund representation on merits, taking the earlier decision into account, and required a reasoned order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation for refund of input tax credit reversed under the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, taking note of the earlier decision on the same provision, notwithstanding the stated pendency of appeals.

Analysis: The earlier judgment construing the proviso to Section 19(2) held that the restriction on input tax credit applied only to the category of transactions covered by clause (v), and not to the other purposes enumerated in Section 19(2). The Court also noted that mere pendency of an appeal, without an interim order of stay, does not suspend the operation of the earlier decision. As the State's appeals were not yet numbered and no stay was shown, the petitioner's representation required consideration on merits in the light of the earlier ruling.

Conclusion: The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks, taking note of the earlier decision.

Final Conclusion: The writ was disposed of by issuing a mandamus for fresh consideration of the refund claim, leaving the substantive tax dispute to be decided administratively in accordance with the governing judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere pendency of an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay, and a representation based on an earlier binding interpretation of the taxing provision must be decided on merits unless that interpretation is stayed or displaced.

---