Input tax credit claims based on original tax invoices were set aside and remanded for fresh assessment under binding precedent.

Input tax credit under section 19(10)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 required production of the original tax invoice from the selling dealer. The Court noted that the assessment disputes were identical to an earlier batch of writ petitions already decided on the same facts, and the respondent did not seriously dispute that precedent. Applying that earlier ruling, the impugned assessment orders disallowing input tax credit were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration through fresh notice and a fresh exercise by the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment orders disallowing input tax credit and the consequential assessments could be sustained, and whether the matters had to be re-done in the light of the earlier binding decision on identical facts.

Analysis: The statutory requirement for claiming input tax credit under section 19(10)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is production of the original tax invoice from the selling dealer. The order records that the issues were identical to those already decided by the Court in an earlier batch of writ petitions, and the respondent did not seriously dispute the applicability of that decision. Following the earlier reasoning, the impugned assessment orders were held liable to be set aside and the assessments were directed to be reconsidered through fresh notice and fresh exercise by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded. The assessment orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the earlier decision.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed, with the assessees obtaining relief against the impugned assessments and the Department being required to undertake fresh assessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where input tax credit is claimed on the basis of original tax invoices and the dispute is covered by an earlier identical decision, the impugned assessments cannot stand and the matters must be reopened for fresh determination in accordance with that precedent.

---