Binding effect of prior VAT interpretation requires refund claim consideration; pending appeal without stay does not suspend it.

The article notes that, under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, the proviso to Section 19(2) was previously interpreted as confining the 3% limitation to transactions falling within clause (v). It further states that the mere filing or pendency of appeals does not stay the binding effect of that interpretation. As the State's appeals were only at the re-presentation stage and no stay had been granted, the authorities were required to examine the petitioner's refund representation on merits and in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were required to consider the petitioner's representation for refund of reversed input tax credit in the light of the earlier decision interpreting the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, despite the State having filed appeals without any stay.

Analysis: The claim arose from reversal of input tax credit under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. The earlier decision relied upon had interpreted the proviso to Section 19(2) as restricting the 3% limitation to transactions falling within clause (v), and the Court noted that mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not amount to a stay of the binding effect of the decision. As the appeals were only in the stage of re-presentation and had not resulted in any stay, the petitioner's representation for refund had to be examined by the authorities.

Conclusion: The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by requiring administrative reconsideration of the refund claim in the light of the existing judicial decision, without any adjudication on the substantive refund entitlement.

---