<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (8) TMI 979 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426740</link>
    <description>A curative and declaratory amendment to section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was treated as retrospective from 11.11.2013, so a manufacturer using inputs in manufacture or processing within the State retained input tax credit and was not required to reverse it merely because the finished goods were later sold. The petitioner, being a manufacturer, was entitled to the benefit of the Division Bench ruling on the same issue, and reversal of credit under section 19(2)(v) was therefore unsustainable. Any challenge to that ruling, and the separate incentive-scheme argument, was left open only if the controlling decision is later reversed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 979 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426740</link>
      <description>A curative and declaratory amendment to section 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was treated as retrospective from 11.11.2013, so a manufacturer using inputs in manufacture or processing within the State retained input tax credit and was not required to reverse it merely because the finished goods were later sold. The petitioner, being a manufacturer, was entitled to the benefit of the Division Bench ruling on the same issue, and reversal of credit under section 19(2)(v) was therefore unsustainable. Any challenge to that ruling, and the separate incentive-scheme argument, was left open only if the controlling decision is later reversed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>