High Court · 2025

WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 10-12-2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMARWP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009and M.P.Nos.2,2,2,2 and 3 of 2008M/s.Sennar Paper Boards P LtdRep By Its Director, No.3/2, Umayal Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-10...Petitioner in W.P.Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008 Vs1.The State Of Tamil Nadu,Rep By Its Secretary, Commercial Taxes And Religious Endowment Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner Of CommercialTaxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3.The Commercial Tax Officer,Kilpauk Assessment Circle, Chennai...Respondents in W.P.Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008Tvl Goodwill Team Papers Ltd.,Rep. By Its Managing Director P. Rajendran, Uthappanaickanur - 626 537. Usilampatti Taluk, __________Page 1 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009Madurai District...Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.6327 of 2009Vs1.The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By ItsSecretary to the Government,Commercial Taxes & Registration Department,Fort St.George, Chennai.2.The Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesEzhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.3.The Commercial Tax OfficerThirumangalam...Respondents in W.P.(MD).No.6327 of 2009PRAYER IN W.P.NO.7264 of 2008:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in the impugned in G.O.Ms.No.198, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) in Notn. No.II/CTR/75 (b2)/2007 dated 19.12.2007 and quash the same as illegal irrational and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006.PRAYER IN W.P.NO.7265 of 2008:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari callingfor the records of the third respondent in TNGST/1121722/2005-2006 passed dated 19.3.2008 pursuant to the impugned in G.O.Ms.No.198, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) in Notn. No.II/CTR/75 (b2)/2007 dated 19.12.2007 and quash the same as illegal irrational and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006.PRAYER IN W.P.NO.726 6 of 2008: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of __________Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009the third respondent in TNGST/1121722/2004-2005 passed dated 19.3.2008 pursuant to the impugned in G.O.Ms.No.198, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) in Notn. No.II/CTR/75 (b2)/2007 dated 19.12.2007 and quash the same as illegal irrational and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006.PRAYER IN W.P.NO.726 7 of 2008: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the third respondent in TNGST/1121722/2003-2004 passed dated 19.3.2008 pursuant to the impugned in G.O.Ms.No.198, Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) in Notn. No.II/CTR/75 (b2)/2007 dated 19.12.2007 and quash the same as illegal irrational and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006.PRAYER IN W.P. (MD). NO. 6327 of 200 9 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the 1st Respondent in Notification No.II (1) / CTR / 75 (b-2) / 2007 issued in G.O.Ms.No. 198, Commercial Taxes and Registation (B2) dated 19.12.2007 and quash the same as illegal, invalid, without authority of Law, unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 insofar as the petitioners is concerned and pass such other order. In all casesFor Petitioner(s):Mr.A.ChandrasekaranFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.Harsha RajSpecial Government PleaderCOMMON ORDER__________Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)Both Mr.A.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submit that the challenge to Notification No.II91)/CTR/75(b-2)/2007 dated 19.12.2007 in G.O.Ms.No.198 Commercial Taxes and Registration (B2) dated 19.12.2007 has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in VG Paper and Boards Ltd. V. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others (W.P.No.36170 of 2007 etc. batch dated 21.12.2022) in favour of the assessee. The operative portion of order dated 21.12.2022 is extracted below:‘17. We are therefore of the view that though exemption notifications ought to be strictly construed and in the event of any ambiguity it must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue, however one cannot curtail or add words by calling in aid the intent of grant of exemption nor can the government aid the authority granting notification or the Legislature in the event of a defective phrasing by adding or mending and thereby making up deficiencies with a view to further supposed intention. The submissions of the revenue on the basis of supposed intention in granting exemption deserves to be rejected.18. In view of the repeal of TNGST Act, 1959 and introduction of TNVAT Act, 2006, doubts were expressed if the impugned notification is traceable to Section 17 of TNGST Act or Section 30 of the TNVAT Act. It is clear that the power whether traceable to sub~Section (3) to Section 30 or sub~Section (3) to Section 17 of the TNVAT Act or TNGST Act, respectively cannot be exercised to withdraw or import a condition and impose a disqualification or ineligibility retrospectively as would be clear from the above discussion.19. We have no hesitation in holding that the impugned notification travels beyond the scope of power conferred under sub~Section (3) to Section 17 (or) Section 30 of the TNGST Act and the TNVAT Act respectively and thus the impugned notification viz., Notification No.II (1)/CTR/75 (b~2)/2007, dated 19.12.2007 (G.O.Ms.No.198) is ultra vires to Sections 17 of the TNGST Act, __________Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 20091959 (or) Sections 30 and 88 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, insofar as it imports conditions with retrospective effect which has the effect of curtailing/ whittling down the scope of exemption granted vide notification in G.O.Ms.No.176 dated 28.12.2006.20. It was submitted that in view of Section 88(2)(i) of the TNGST Act , the saving is only in respect of notifications, which continued to be in force on or before the introduction of the TNVAT Act. However, the original notification dated 28.12.2006, had a limited operation and for a temporary period, which has expired long before the impugned notification importing the additional condition/ obligation was issued. The impugned notification is bad for the said reason as well. We are not inclined to examine the above question in view of the fact that we have already held that the impugned notification is ultra vires the power under Section 17(3) (or) Section 30(3) of the TNGST Act and the TNVAT Act respectively.21. Coming to second question as to the applicability of ‘Unjust Enrichment’, except in one case, viz., W.P.No.6519 of 2009, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the other matters that as and when a claim for refund is made, if the Assessing Officers choose to examine the claim applying the principle of “Unjust Enrichment“, they would respond/ meet the said aspect. ‘2. In fine, the impugned Notification was declared as invalid and an excess of the power conferred on the State Government under the applicable provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2016. The orders of assessment relying on the Notification were set~aside, and there was a direction to re-do the assessments in accordance with law, de hors the Notification. 3. The ratio of the aforesaid decision would be applicable to the present cases as well and hence the impugned Notifications are quashed. These Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.__________Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009(A.S.M.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) 10-12-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: YesSLTo1.The Secretary, Commercial Taxes And Religious Endowment Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.2.The Commissioner Of CommercialTaxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-5.3.The Commercial Tax Officer,Kilpauk Assessment Circle, Chennai.4.The Secretary to the Government,Commercial Taxes & Registration Department,Fort St.George, Chennai.5.The Commercial Tax OfficerThirumangalam.DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.ANDMUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J.__________Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP Nos.7264, 7265, 7266 and 7267 of 2008AND WP(MD) NO. 6327 of 2009SLWP No. 7264 to 7267 of 2008,WP(MD) NO. 6327 OF 2009and M.P.Nos.2,2,2,2 and 3 of 200810-12-2025__________Page 7 of 7