LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-417

CHENNAI UNITED METAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, GUMMIDIPOONDI ASSESSMENT CIRCLE

Decided On August 17, 2017
Chennai United Metal Industries Private Limited Appellant
V/S
Commercial Tax Officer, Gummidipoondi Assessment Circle Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), appearing for the respondent.

(2.) With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The petitioner is a registered dealer on the file of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 ("TNVAT Act" in short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ("CST Act" in short). The petitioner is stated to be the manufacturer and dealer in M.S.Flats, Angles, Channels etc. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order of assessment dated 01.06.2017 for the year 2014-2015, by which the proposal made in the notice dated 16.02.2017 proposing to reverse the input tax credit has been confirmed. This notice is a fallout of the direction issued in W.P.No. 23075 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016 in which the petitioner challenged an order of assessment dated 09.05.2016 under the CST Act for the year 2014-2015. Under the guise of complying with the said direction, the respondent has issued a notice dated 06.02.2017 to the petitioner proposing to reverse the input tax credit under Sections 19(2)(v) and 19(5)(c) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner submitted their objections on 28.02.2017 reiterating their earlier objections dated 03.01.2017 and with regard to the proposed reversal of input tax credit under Section 19(2)(v), the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Everest Industries Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, 2017 100 VST 158 (Mad). With regard to the proposed reversal under Section 19(5)(c) is concerned, the petitioner gave factual explanation and requested to drop the proposal under both the heads. Along with the objections dated 28.02.2017, the petitioner enclosed the following documents: