TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is engaged in the manufacture of sheet metal components and effects sales to Hyundai Motor India Limited (in short 'Hyundai'). The issue that arises in these Writ Petitions relates to liability in terms of section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act'). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Sl.No.67/Part B/First Schedule, deals with industrial inputs for use in manufacturing activity. Rule 6(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 (in short 'Rules') contemplates issuance of a certificate by the purchaser of an industrial input, which certificate, according to the petitioner, is only procedural and not a mandatory requirement. The petitioner had effected sales on the basis of invoices to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssa V. M.A.Tulloch and Co. Ltd. ((1964) 15 STC 642) and Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. Commercial Tax Officer and others ((1965) 2 SCR 626). On the question of reversal of ITC, reliance is placed upon the case of Sara Leathers V. Commercial Tax Officer, Tambaram I Assessment Circle, Chennai ((2010) 30 VST 581). 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Revenue points out that the prayer in writ petition is for a direction that a certificate as referred to in Rule 6(3)(b) was not mandatory and such direction cannot be granted in a Writ Petition. If at all, the petitioner should have filed a Writ of Declaration challenging the Rule itself, which has not been done in the present case. I see no merit in this obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entioned therein is the only method by which a dealer/assessee could support his claim in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act. 12. A plain reading of Rule 6(3)(b) does not support this conclusion as the Rule only states that the purchaser shall obtain a certificate from a registered dealer, who is a manufacturer or producer of industrial input and nowhere states that the same has to be produced in support of the claim of reduced rate by an assessee. 13. The Supreme Court, in the case of M.A.Tulloch (supra) was concerned with the production of a Declaration under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (14 of 1947) and Rule 27(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, which read as follows: 'Section 5(2)(a)(ii)-sales to a r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall not be entitled to claim any deduction of sales to such a dealer.' 14. Upon considering the relevant provision and Rule, the Bench observes that nothing therein disentitled a selling dealer to a deduction, if the dealer was in a position to adduce evidence other than the Declaration to justify his eligibility for the deduction claimed. A distinction is thus made between the dealer obtaining such a declaration from the seller and the production of the same before the authority. 15. To elaborate, while such production might create a positive entitlement, non-production, by itself, would not vitiate the right of an assessee, if the assessee were otherwise able to establish entitlement to the relief sought. The Bench in conclusion s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ming to the first ground, a perusal of the relevant statutory provision as well as Rule do not bring home the point that the production of an industrial input certificate is mandatory to avail the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Act. No doubt, Rule 6(3)(b) refers to an industrial input certificate stating that such certificate ought to be procured by the purchaser from the seller. However, if this were not done, the assessee, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of M.A.Tulloch (supra) is always entitled to support its claim based on other supporting documents. 18. I also draw support from an analogy drawn in the context of Section 70 of the Act dealing with transit pass. The provisions of section 70 require a dealer to produce a trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as in the impugned order found that only a supporting statement was filed by the petitioner and had no actual particulars of transactions such as work order, inward delivery challan, quantity received and outward delivery challan were supplied. If at all the petitioner was of the view that its claim was in order, the burden rested upon it to justify such claim with whatever material that it could furnish. Such factual particulars do not appear to have been filed. 22. Thus while holding that the Declaration in terms of Section 6(3)(b) is not the only evidence in support of the claim of the petitioner and that the petitioner is well entitled to produce any other supporting evidence as it may be in a position to, this issue is remanded back....