TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer on the file of the first respondent, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (henceforth, referred to as TNVAT Act) (now dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) is before this Court, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to refund input tax credit reversed for the period November, 2013 to March, 2015 along with interest in the light of the law laid down by 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). 3. In the decision referred to supra, a batch of cases was heard by the Court, involving interpretation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rposes set out in clauses (i) to (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 19, the assessee should be able to claim the ITC, with a caveat in so far as clause (v) is concerned. The caveat being, the limitation, which is encapsulated in the proviso to Section 19(2) of the 2006 Act. Therefore, the limitation provided in the proviso would apply only vis-a-vis the purpose specified in clause (v) and not qua other purposes set out in clause (i) to (iv) and (vi) of Section 19(2) of the 2006 Act. 20.4 If, that be the conclusion, then, surely, none of the impugned orders can sustain. The fact that, the proviso, on account of erroneous interpretation by the Revenue, was causing difficulties for the manufacturers, is exemplified by the Statement of Object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent sent a reply on the very same day itself (20.04.2017) stating that they have not received the Official copy of this Court's order and he has made necessary instructions to the Joint Commissioner (CT) Chennai, and Joint Commissioner (Legal), Chennai, and awaiting clarification. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, on the other hand, would oppose the relief sought for by the petitioner, by contending that as against the decision in M/s. Everest Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) the State has preferred Appeals and the same is in Sr Stage, yet to be numbered (as the papers relating to the Appeals have been returned by the Registry for certain compliances). 6. In view of the submission of the learned A....