- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madras High Court Extends Input Tax Credit Benefit Before-Amendment Transactions
Madras High Court Extends Input Tax Credit Benefit Before-Amendment Transactions The Court allowed the petition as the Respondent did not object to the contentions raised The Madras High Court extended the benefit of Input Tax Credit in respect of the transactions that occurred prior to the issue of amendment in the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 2015. The matter titled M/s Nezone Tubes Limited...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Madras High Court Extends Input Tax Credit Benefit Before-Amendment Transactions
The Court allowed the petition as the Respondent did not object to the contentions raised
The Madras High Court extended the benefit of Input Tax Credit in respect of the transactions that occurred prior to the issue of amendment in the Tamil Nadu Act 5 of 2015.
The matter titled M/s Nezone Tubes Limited v The Assistant Commissioner was placed before a single-judge Court of Justice S.M. Subramaniam in the High Court of Madras.
There was no factual matrix involved in this matter and the challenge involved was only a legal issue. The Petitioner – Company contended that the amendment was effected by way of rectification of an anomaly and therefore, it could not be construed as a new policy. Due to this reason, the Petitioner further contended that the benefit of Input Tax Credit granted pursuant to the amendment should be extended in order to cover the transactions, which took place prior to the insertion of the amendment.
The Respondent – Authority was not able to object to the said contentions raised by the Petitioner.
Reliance was placed by the Petitioner on the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions led by W.P.(MD).No.15103 of 2015 whose order was pronounced on 30 August 2019.
The Court went through the judgement and felt inclined to follow the decision in that case where the said benefit was extended to the petitioner therein and the order had become final since no appeal was sought later.
The Court allowed the petition, on the basis of the aforesaid judgment.