TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 979
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the respondent to pass orders for refund of the said sum, being the Input Tax Credit reversed under Section 19 (2) (v) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. This Court, on earlier occasion, considered the similar prayer, in the case of (M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner (CT) and another) in W.P.Nos.18991 of 2017 and disposed of the said Writ Petition, on 17.08.2017, in the light of the decision of this Court, in (M/s. Everest Industries Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Secretary and another) reported in (2017) 100 VST 158 (Mad) and the order passed in W.P.No.18991 of 2017 is extracted hereinbelow: " " Heard Mr.R. Venkataraman, the learned Senior Counsel for M/s. Lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y providing that ITC shall be allowed in excess of 3% of the tax for the purposes specified in clause (v). Clause (v), if read with sub-section (2) of Section 19 would have me conclude that, if, an assessee were to purchase taxable goods specified in the First Schedule, which were sold in the course of Inter-State Trade or Commerce against declarations made in form 'C', an assessee would be allowed ITC only in excess of 3% of the tax paid on such purchases. 20.2 Therefore, there is, to my mind, nothing in the proviso, which will have me come to the conclusion that, it is attracted to any of the other clause referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the 2006 Act. 20.3 A plain reading of the provisions of sub-section (1) and s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following announcements were made:- (i) Input tax credit reversal imposed at the rate of 3 per cent on the Inter-State sale of goods as per proviso to Section 19(2)(v) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, which was introduced with effect from 11-11-2013 will be withdrawn henceforth to make the manufacturing industries in Tamil Nadu more competitive with their counterparts in the neighbouring States." 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, by applying the law laid down by the Court, in the decision referred to supra, it has to be necessarily held that reversal of ITC directed to be paid by the petitioner is not tenable. The learned counsel further submits that, relying upon the said decision, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... A similar relief, was sought for, in the case of (M/s. Abirami Engineering Company Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Coimbatore) in W.P.Nos.8683 to 8685 of 2017) and the Court disposed of the Writ Petitions, by a common order, dated 11.04.2017, by directing the representation to be considered on merits and in accordance with law. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the directions issued in those cases has also not been complied with. 7. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 26.04.2017, taking note of the decision of the Court in M/s. Everest Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and pass approp....