https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347527 The Madras HC noted that the earlier ruling had interpreted the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 as restricting reversal of input tax credit to the situation covered by clause (v), and not to the other purposes listed in Section 19(2). Because the State had only said that an appeal was being filed and no stay had been granted, the pending appeal did not justify withholding action on the petitioner's representation. The respondent was therefore required to consider the refund request on merits in light of the earlier decision, but no direct refund was ordered. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Sep 2017 09:44:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347527 The Madras HC noted that the earlier ruling had interpreted the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act, 2006 as restricting reversal of input tax credit to the situation covered by clause (v), and not to the other purposes listed in Section 19(2). Because the State had only said that an appeal was being filed and no stay had been granted, the pending appeal did not justify withholding action on the petitioner's representation. The respondent was therefore required to consider the refund request on merits in light of the earlier decision, but no direct refund was ordered. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347527