https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348191 The Madras HC noted that the earlier interpretation of the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 limited the restriction on input tax credit to the purpose covered by clause (v), and not to the other purposes listed in Section 19(2). It also observed that mere pendency of appeals without an interim stay does not suspend that ruling. On that basis, the petitioner's request for reconsideration of reversal of input tax credit could not be rejected outright, and the respondent was directed to examine the representations in light of the binding earlier decision and pass orders on merits. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:01:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348191 The Madras HC noted that the earlier interpretation of the proviso to Section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 limited the restriction on input tax credit to the purpose covered by clause (v), and not to the other purposes listed in Section 19(2). It also observed that mere pendency of appeals without an interim stay does not suspend that ruling. On that basis, the petitioner's request for reconsideration of reversal of input tax credit could not be rejected outright, and the respondent was directed to examine the representations in light of the binding earlier decision and pass orders on merits. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348191