TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... subsequent sale of goods purchased within the State, whose turnover relating to taxable goods, for a year, is less than Rs.50,00,000/- may, at his option, instead of paying tax under sub-section (2), pay a tax, for each year, on his turnover relating to taxable goods at such rate not exceeding one per cent, as may be notified by the Government. Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 is an exception to Sub-Section (2) to Section 3 and is subject to Sub-Section (1) to Section 3 of the Act. 4. The impugned orders passed by the second respondent confirm the demand in terms of Section 3(4)(b) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 as it stood upto 25.09.2011. The said Sub-Clause was amended by Act No.27 of 2011 with effect from 26.09.2011. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petitions is that the amendment in the year 2011 vide Act No.27 of 2011 clarified the law and is therefore retrospective. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be imposed with tax liability in terms of unamended provisions as it stood prior to its substitution with effect from 26.09.2011. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following two recent decisions of the Madur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TNVAT Act, 2006 upto 25.09.2011 Section 3(4)(b) of the TNVAT Act, 2006 with effect from 1.4.2012 * If the turnover relating to taxable goods of a dealer paying tax under Clause (a), in a year, reaches rupees fifty lakhs at any time during that year, he shall inform the assessing authority in writing within seven days from the date of which such turnover has so reached. Such dealer is liable to pay tax under sub-section (2) on all his sales of rupees fifty lakhs and above and he is entitled to the input tax credit on the purchases made from the date, and on the stock available with him, the purchases of which has been made within ninety days before the date, on which such turnover has reached rupees fifty lakhs. Such dealer is liable to pay tax under Sub-Section (2) on all his sales of rupees fifty lakhs and above, the expression ''Such dealer may pay a tax for each year on his turnover relating to taxable goods upto rupees fifty lakhs at such rate not exceeding one per cent, as may be notified by the Government and is liable to pay tax under sub-section (2) on all his sales of taxable goods above rupees fifty lakhs'' shall be substituted. * ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessment Year 2010-2011, the petitioner was not entitled to concession under section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 during the succeeding Assessment Year, i.e. Assessment Year 2011-12 in terms of Sub-Clause (ii) to Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 as the petitioner incurred disqualification for availing the concession druing 2010-2011 and for availing concession during 2011-2012. 18. Therefore, there is no case made out by the petitioner for any interference against the impugned orders passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Therefore, there is no merits in W.P.No.8256 of 2015. 19. The petitioner is therefore entitled input tax credit for being set-off against the tax liabilities as the petitioner was liable to pay tax under Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. 20. Coming to the previous Assessment Year 2010-11, it should be remembered that the cardinal rule under the taxing statutes law is to apply the law as it stood during the relevant period. There is no scope for interpretation based on the subsequent amendment to the law during the subsequent Assessment Year. 21. This i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edents available inasmuch as the evolution of all such principles are within the four corners of the following opinion of Rowlatt, J.: (Cape Brandy case [Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, (1921) 1 KB 64] , KB p. 71) "... in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." 25. Though the court in Tvl. Shanmugamari Timbers's case referred to supra has interpreted the subsequent amendment to Section 3(4)(b) of the Act to be retrospective by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, 2015 (1) SCC 1., it is to be noted that the reasoning given therein would not have actually further the case of the petitioner therein. 26. In CIT Vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1, while dealing with 42.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the "Notes on Clauses" appended to the Finance Bill, 2002 while proposing insertion of proviso to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the Finance Act in the year 1995 and that covered surcharge on block assessment as well. 31. After discussion, the Court in para 26 held as follows:- 26. Notwithstanding the aforesaid position clarified by us, we are of the opinion that dehors this discussion, in any case, on the application of general principles concerning retrospectivity, the proviso to Section 113 of the Act cannot be treated as clarificatory in nature, thereby having retrospective effect. To make it clear, we need to understand the general principles concerning retrospectivity. 32. Again in para 31 the Court held as under:- 31. When we examine the insertion of the proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature. 33. The discussion in rest of the paragraphs in the said judgment explained when an enactment would be and when it would not be clarificatory. 34. The Court observed that a Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.09.2011. Section 1(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2011 [Act No.27 of 2011] states that the amendment will come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. This is evident from the reading of the aforesaid Gazette Notification which reads as under:- The following Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly received the assent of the Governor on the 26th September 2011 and is hereby published for general information:- ACT No. 27 of 2011. An Act further to amend the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. BE it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu in the Sixty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:- 1. (1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2011. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint. 2. In section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, in sub-section (4), in clause (b), for the expression "Such dealer is liable to pay tax under sub-section (2) on all his sales of rupees fifty lakhs and above", the expression "Such dealer may pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 43. Though the bill that was introduced for bringing in the amendment in 2011 to Sub-Section (4)(b) to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and had considered the hardship caused to the dealers on account of the operation of the said provision, it cannot be said that the amendment was to have a retrospective operation. 44. Under Section 1(2) of ACT No.27 of 2011, the legislature has consciously conferred a discretion with the Government to notify the date from which the amendment was to be come into force. The discretion was vested with the Government to give effect to the amendment with prospective effect or retrospective effect or with effect from the date of such publication of the amendment. There was no restriction. 45. Though in Tvl.Makkal Stores, the Court has followed the previous decision rendered by the Madurai Bench of this Court in Tvl.Shanmugamari Timbers, and has come to a conclusion that the amendment to Section 3(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 was retrospective and the amendment will apply to all Assessment Years from 2006 onwards, it is to be noted that this was not the intention of the legislature when amendment was b....