WINNER LEATHER CREATION Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent dated 30.04.2015 relating to the assessment year 2012 -13.

(2.) The petitioner, being a registered dealer on the file of the respondent, are carrying on the business of manufacturing of finished leather in their unit at SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SIPCOT, RANIPET. Returns were filed by them both under the TNVAT Act 2006 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the assessment year 2012 -13, assessment was completed under the CST Act, in which the entire taxable turnover was covered with C Form on which the respondent levied tax at 2% by proceedings dated 10.04.2015. Similarly, assessment order was issued under Sec. 22(2) of the TNVAT Act on the self assessment basis, accepting the returns filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, invoking Sec. 19(2)(v) of the Act, a notice dated 15.10.2014 was issued demanding the differential ITC at 3% on the estimated purchase value and directed them to file their objections, and the petitioner filed their objections, stating that the demand is not correct and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the reversal of ITC to an extent of 3% from November 2013 onwards was already made and they effected interstate sales only to registered dealers falling under Sec. 8(1) of the CST Act which were covered by form C declarations. In the meantime, for the assessment year 2012 -13, self assessment was passed on 07.04.2015 and CST Assessment was also issued on 30.04.2015. However, on 30.04.2015, the impugned order for 2012 -13 under TNVAT Act was served on them, in which, reversal of ITC under Sec. 19(2)(V) of the TNVAT Act was confirmed, without considering the reply filed by them which was acknowledged on 16.02.2015. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) 1 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order demanding the difference of 3% ITC on the purchase value relating to inter -state sales invoking Sec. 19(2)(V) of the Act, is without any authority of law, since 19(2)(V) was amended by Act 28/2013 only and there is no jurisdiction to invoke the said Sec. prior to November 2013 and therefore, passing such an impugned order is beyond the scope of the TNVAT Act.