JAYAM & CO. Vs. ASSISTANT COMNMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the matter in detail finally at this stage on all issues that are raised. We are of the opinion that special leave petitions need to be granted only on the issue as to whether sub -section (20) of Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'VAT Act') could be given retrospective effect.

(3.) All these appeals arise out of common judgment dated July 17, 2013 rendered in batch of writ petitions. In the writ petitions filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'dealers'), vires of newly inserted sub -section (20) of Section 19 of the VAT Act, vide amendment brought by Amendment Act 22 of 2013 were challenged. This provision though came into force on August 19, 2010, by the aforesaid Amendment Act, was given retrospective effect from January 01, 2007 by Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax (Special Provision) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2010'). The retrospectivity of the provision was also questioned by the dealers. The dealers had argued that this provision is confiscatory in nature as well as unreasonable and arbitrary and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and repugnant to the general scheme of the charging provisions of Section 3(2) and 3(3) of the VAT Act. On both the counts, the dealers' challenge has been repelled by the High Court vide impugned judgment July 17, 2013.