Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that export of goods is not a condition precedent or sine qua non to qualify as a Zero Rate sale as long as the sale falls within clause(ii) of Section 18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (TNVAT).
Facts- The present batch of Writ appeals is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in asmuch as it finds that “export” is a condition precedent to constitute “Zero Rate Sale”. The common question that arises for consideration revolves around the scope of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “TNVAT Act”). There is also a challenge to the Circular No.9 /2013 dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in which it was clarified that sales of goods to a dealer located in a Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as “SEZ”) in the State would not qualify as a “Zero Rate Sale” unless the goods purchased by the dealer located in a SEZ is exported as such or consumed or used in the manufacture of other goods that are exported.
Conclusion- Export of goods is not a condition precedent or sine qua non to qualify as a Zero Rate sale as long as the sale falls within clause(ii) of Section 18 (1) of the TNVAT Act.
To claim refund in terms of the Section 18 (2) read with 18 (3) of the TNVAT Act, export of goods is an essential condition but not the benefit of Zero Rate.
Zero Rate is distinct from exemption and thus the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the TNVAT Act would not get attracted.
The impugned circular is set-aside to the extent it is contrary to the law declared by this Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present batch of Writ appeals is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as it finds that “export” is a condition precedent to constitute “Zero Rate Sale”. There are Tax Case Appeals and Writ Petitions wherein identical questions are involved and thus taken up for hearing with the present batch of Writ Appeals by consent of all parties concerned. The common question that arises for consideration revolves around the scope of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “TNVAT Act”). There is also a challenge to the Circular No.9 /2013 dated 24.07.2013 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in which it was clarified that sales of goods to a dealer located in a Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as “SEZ”) in the State would not qualify as a “Zero Rate Sale” unless the goods purchased by the dealer located in a SEZ is exported as such or consumed or used in the manufacture of other goods that are exported.
2. At the outset, it may be relevant to note that in the present batch of cases the transactions involved are in the nature of works contract apart from conventional sale of goods covered under Section 18(1)(ii) of the TNVAT Act, i.e., sale of goods to any registered dealer located in SEZ in the State. There is no uniformity as to the nature of goods or transactions. The following Table gives a broad view of the nature of transactions/ activity undertaken by some of the appellants/ petitioners:
