2022 (8) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....2017 following the ratio laid down in a batch of Writ Petitions in the case of The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (FAC) V. M/s.Everest Industries Limited (2022(4) TMI 1204) touching upon the reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in terms of Section 19(2)(v) of the Act. 2. As against the aforesaid decision, the State has filed Writ Appeals in all cases. In W.A.No.1654 of 2017 pertaining to this petitioner, an order has been passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.03.2018 remanding the matter to the file of the learned single Judge. 3. It is relevant to note that the larger batch of matters touching upon the reversal of ITC in terms of Section 19(2)(v) have co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uted with a new provision, the time in that case is reversed. The amendments restore the benefit to all the dealers effecting interstate sale. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondents, the subsequent amendment is in the form of "Declaration" reiterating that the provision is to be read as it stood before the 2013 amendment. Upon consideration of the materials placed before us and for the reasons stated above, the amendment to Section 19(2) brought about in the year 2015 is held to be curative in nature. Though we disagree with the reasoning of the learned Judge as to the interpretation placed on the scope of amendment to Section 19(2) vide Act 28 of 2013, in the light of the finding that Amendment Act 5 of 2015 is curative ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t place. 7. In the absence of a claim or credit, the question of reversal does not arise. It was for this purpose and in light of the distinction made that the Division Bench had set aside the order of the learned single Judge that had been passed on the anvil of Section 19(2)(v), remanding the matter to the file of the learned single Judge for decision in regard to the distinction made by the petitioner. 8. Since the decision on the aspect of applicability of Section 19(2)(v) impacts the case of manufacturers as well, of which the petitioner is, admittedly, one, the petitioner does not wish to make a foray into the argument taken by it in W.A.No.1654 of 2019. It merely wishes to obtain the benefit of the decision of the Division Bench in....