2017 (9) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 ( TNVAT Act  in short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ( CST Act  in short). The petitioner is stated to be the manufacturer and dealer in M.S.Flats, Angles, Channels etc. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order of assessment dated 01.06.2017 for the year 2014-2015, by which the proposal made in the notice dated 16.02.2017 proposing to reverse the input tax credit has been confirmed. This notice is a fallout of the direction issued in W.P.No. 23075 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016 in which the petitioner challenged an order of assessment dated 09.05.2016 under the CST Act for the year 2014-2015. Under the guise of complying wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing, completed the assessment and passed the impugned order. As pointed out earlier, reversal of input tax credit was proposed to be made under Sections 19(2)(v) and 19(5)(c) and so far as the aspect regarding reversal of input tax credit under Section 19(2)(v) is concerned, the matter is now covered by the decision of this Court in Everest Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (supra). Curiously, the respondent has proposed to express a contrary view than what has been expressed in the said decision. The interpretation sought to be made by the respondent to get over the decision in Everest Industries Limited's case, is unacceptable. The interpretation of a judgment can be given by stating that it will not apply to the f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the process of being re-presented. Mere pendency of the appeal will not amount to stay of the order of the lower Court or the lower authority. Therefore, as on date, the order passed by this Court in M/s.Everest Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), holds the field. Therefore, the finding rendered by the respondent with regard to reversal under Section 19(2)(v), as made in the impugned order, has to be set aside. 6.With regard to reversal under Section 19(5)(c), the petitioner has given factual explanation and their case is, immediately after manufacture, the value cannot be ascertained, as the market is fluctuating and only after the manufacture is completed, the value of the manufactured goods could be ascertained. But ....