2017 (9) TMI 1242

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed 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 the case of (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 proviso to Section 19 (2) (ii) of TNVAT Act. The Court, after elaborately considering the submissions made on behalf of the dealers as well ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 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 Objects and Reasons which was set forth, at the time of introduction of Act 5 of 2015. 21. A perusal of the relevant extract of the Statement of Obje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ought 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 Additional Government Pleader for the respondent, it appears that the State is in the process of preferring Appeals by re-presenting the Appeal papers and the Appeals are yet to be numbered. The settled legal position being that, mere pendency of an Appeal without interim order will not amount to the grant of stay of the order passed by the Lower Court or Lower Forum. In the instant case, it appears....