JUDGMENT (Prayer in WP.No.9721 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in TIN 33731120428/2009-10 dated 31.01.2019 and quash the same.)    1. This batch of seven writ petitions challenging orders passed for the periods 2009-10 to 2015-16 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 (in short 'Act') relates to varied issues as tabulated below: Sl.No. Year Issues Page No.Objection Page No.-Order Confirmation in the order 1. 2009-10 i.EOU ii.TDS 52/70 & Para 9 & 10, 69 & 70 102 & 103, 102 104 2. 2010-11 i.EOU ii.TDS 55 69/70 109/106 115 118 3. 2011-12 i.EOU ii.TDS iii. Reversal of ITC RC cancelled Dealers 121/123/121/126/122/ 128 129 129 131 131 4. 2012-13 TDS 60/134/136/138 140 141 5. 2013-14 TDS 144/148 150 151 6. 2014-15 TDS 154/158 160 160 7. 2015-16 Proposal received from the enforcement wing on stock reconciliation 26 (31.05.2016) /66 26/73 to 85 166 167 2. One issue which is common to the assessments at Serial No. 1 to 3, relates to exemption claimed by an export oriented unit (EOU) and consequent denial of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed. 3. Both Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would point out that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by an order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. (Md) Nos.558 and 559 of 2013 dated 14.12.2018. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as follows: 3. This Court after considering the fact that the respondent has sold the goods to a company which is located in the Special Economic Zone and it is not disputed that 100% of the goods were also exported without any exemption, held that Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 gets attracted as the sale falls under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Writ Petitions were thus allowed and the impugned order of the appellant was quashed holding that reversal of income tax concession has been done on a misconception and misreading of the provisions of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,1956. 4. The Writ Petitions were thus allowed and the impugned order of the appellant was quashed holding that reversal of income tax concession has been done on a misconception and misreading of the provisions of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,1956. 4. Section 5(1) and (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows: ''5.When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export:-(1) A sale or purchase of goods shall be deemed to take place in the course of the export of the goods out of the Territory of India only if the sale or purchase either occasions such export or is effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods after the goods have crossed the Customs Frontiers of India. (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the Territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with the agreement or order for or in relation to such export.'' 5. Section 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 reads as follows: ''18. Zero-rating:--(1)The following shall be zero-rate sale for the purpose of this Act, and shall be eligible for input tax credit or refund of the amount of the tax paid on the purchase of goods specified in the First Schedule including capital goods, by a registered dealer in the State, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed:-- (i) A sale as specified under sub-section(1) or (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956(Central Act 74 of 1956); (ii) Sale of goods to any registered dealer located in Special Economic Zone in the State, if such registered dealer has been authorized to establish such units by the authority specified by the Central Government in this behalf; and (iii) Sale of goods to International Organizations listed out in the Fifth Schedule.'' 6. It is the case of the appellant that the sales which are the subject-matter of the impugned orders do not attract Section 18(1) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 7. It is the case of the appellant that the sales which are the subject-matter of the impugned orders do not attract Section 18(1) (ii) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act,2006 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellant produced before this Court a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.528, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments(B2) Department, dated 21.11.1997 to the following effect: ''100% Exported Oriented Units and Units located in the Chennai Export Processing Zone((CEPZ) will be fully exempted from payment of Sales Tax.'' 8. In view of the above-stated position, this Court is able to see that the order of the learned Single Judge is well-founded and We have no reason to interfere with the same. 4. Also, admittedly, the order of the learned Single Judge, which order has been confirmed by the Division Bench, has been cited by the petitioner before the Assessing Authority in written objection dated 15.11.2018 but has admittedly been omitted to have been taken into consideration. Instead, the Assessing Authority has preferred to refer to and rely upon a clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 15.03.2007, adverse to the petitioner. 5. This is unacceptable in light of the order in favour of the petitioner, which has been brought to the notice of the Assessing Authority as well. In view of the same, the issue in regard to ITC to EOU stands decided in favour of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to pursue the challenge to the orders of assessment for the period 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 insofar the demands relate to tax deduction at source (TDS) and have been settled by the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.9739, 9744 & 9746 are closed. 7. The same issue of tax deduction at source as arising in the above three years also figures for the period 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and in view of the acceptance of the petitioner of this issue for the subsequent three years, this issue is held adverse to it, for the periods 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 as well. W.P.Nos. 9721, 9724 & 9738 of 2019 are ordered accordingly. 8. As regards the issue of reversal of ITC on dealer whose registration has been cancelled for the period 2011-12, learned counsel on instructions, states that the petitioner does not wish to contest the impugned assessment, as the amount involved is insignificant. W.P.Nos. 9721, 9724 & 9738 of 2019 are ordered accordingly. 8. As regards the issue of reversal of ITC on dealer whose registration has been cancelled for the period 2011-12, learned counsel on instructions, states that the petitioner does not wish to contest the impugned assessment, as the amount involved is insignificant. Hence, the impugned reversal thus stands confirmed. 9. What remains is the assessment for the period 2015-16. Admittedly, this is a revision of assessment that has been framed even prior to the passing of a deemed assessment order and hence, has no legs to stand, in law. Thus, the same is quashed. Incidentally, the respondents would still have time till 30.10.2022 for initiating proceedings for revision of assessment and may well avail this opportunity, if so inclined. 10. W.P.No.9748 of 2019 stands disposed in the above terms. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.