Case Law Details
Renatus Procon Private Ltd. Vs Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling (Madras High Court)
HC held that with the enacting of the TNGST Act, 2018, the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling does not exist in the form in which it did under the TNVAT Act and hence, the application filed by the petitioner does not survive.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. J.V. Niranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K.V asanthamala, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling (in short ACAR/Authority) dated 26.04.2019. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier vide W.P.No.30528 of 2015, challenging the Clarification obtained from the Authority on 02.09.2015 on the taxability of sand lime bricks. This Court, by order dated 29.09.2015, had set aside clarification dated 02.09.2015, directing the Authority to hear the petitioner and only thereafter, take a view.
3. Despite a specific direction from the Court to the effect that the exercise of hearing the petitioner and passing appropriate orders is to be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, the Authority appears to have taken the matter up only in 2018 after a lapse of three years. That apart, in the interim, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act stood subsumed into the provisions of Tamil Nadu State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the era-GST has come to be. Thus, the petitioner, upon receipt of notice on 19.12.2018, has objected to the notice contending that the same is liable to be dropped.
4. The sum and substance of the petitioner’s submissions is that, with the enacting of the TNGST Act, 2018, the Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling does not exist in the form in which it did under the TNVAT Act and hence, the application filed by the petitioner itself does not survive. Thus, the impugned order is assailed on this basis.
5. In the counter filed the respondents, they rely on the provisions of Section 174 of the TNGST Act to take aid from the saving provisions. However, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner, I need hardly address the defence taken by the respondents, as I accede to the submissions made by the petitioner, concluding that, both the application and the impugned order would survive no longer.
6. It is brought to my notice that the assessments for various years have been kept pending by the Authority awaiting disposal of this writ petition and in light of an interim order passed by this Court on 04.11.2019 directing the respondents to maintain status quo. This order has been interpreted by the respondents to mean that all assessment should be kept pending. Seeing as the assessments relate to the periods 2014-15, 2017-18, a period of 16 weeks is granted to the parties to complete all pending assessments in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
