Case Law Details
Aruna Alloy Steel Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (CT) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court recently addressed a crucial aspect of the TNVAT Act regarding invisible loss in manufacturing. Aruna Alloy Steel Private Limited challenged an assessment order denying input tax credit on input lost during manufacture.
The crux of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of Sections 19(2)(ii) and 19(9) of the TNVAT Act. The petitioner contended that input lost in manufacturing, termed invisible loss, should not attract Section 19(9). They cited a circular issued by the Commercial Tax Department and relevant precedents to support their argument.
The Madras High Court, in its analysis, referred to the decision in Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd case and the rules of construction. It concluded that Section 19(9) does not apply to manufacturing/invisible loss, considering it an inevitable and inherent part of the manufacturing process covered by Section 19(2)(ii). However, it emphasized the authority’s right to verify the genuineness of input usage in manufacturing.
Moreover, the court cited a previous case involving M/s. GBR Metals Pvt Ltd, where a similar favorable view was taken. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for reconsideration, taking into account the court’s rulings and relevant departmental statements.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By this common order, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. In these Writ Petitions the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 28.11.2016 for the assessment year 2008-09 till 2013-2014. The dispute pertains to denial of input tax credit on input lost in the course of manufacture as invisible loss. The department had earlier issued a circular dated 20.10.2011. The circular was subject matter of a challenge before the Hon’ble Division Bench in a batch of Writ Petition lead case being Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd. The Hon’ble Division Bench has considered the circular issued by the Commercial Tax Department and has passed the final order on 28.02.2023. Operative portion of the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench reads as under:
“……
On analysis of the scope and interplay between Sections 19(2)(ii) and 19(9) of the TNVAT Act, precedents dealing with manufacturing/invisible loss and the rules of construction referred above we find that Section 19(9) of the TNVAT Act would not get attracted to manufacturing/invisible loss which is inevitable and inherent part of manufacture and thus covered by Section 19(2)(ii) of the TNVAT Act. However, this would not preclude the assessing authority from enquiring if the claim of use of input in manufacture is genuine or otherwise.”
3. Already, this Court has also taken a favorable view under a similar circumstances in the case of M/s. GBR Metals Pvt Ltd Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) in W.P.Nos.22304 to 22309 of 2016 dated 28.02.2020.
4. Considering the same, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remitted back to the respondent to pass denovo order within a period of 60 days duly considering the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd dated 28.02.2023 and the decision of this Court in M/s. GBR Metals Pvt Ltd Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) in W.P.Nos.22304 to 22309 of 2016 dated 28.02.2020. While passing the denovo order, the respondent may also consider the statement gathered by the Commercial Tax Department pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 03.04.2017.
With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
