Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2024 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 487 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of interest on late payment of profession tax - requirement to deduct the profession tax from the salaries and wages of the employees - time limit for filing return and payment of profession tax under the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 - interest for delayed payment of tax - HELD THAT:- In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers [2010 (7) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT] one of the questions which arose was that “whether the period of three months can be counted as 90 days” while answering, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, considering Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and also the definition of ‘month’ as defined in Section 3 (35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that the legislature had the choice of describing the periods of time in the same units, that is, to describe the periods as “three months” and “one month” respectively or by describing the periods as “ninety days” and “thirty days” respectively. It did not do so. Therefore, the legislature did not intend that the period of three months used in sub-section (3) to be equated to 90 days, nor intended that the period of thirty days to be taken as one month - The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that a ‘month’ does not refer to a period of thirty days, but refers to the actual period of a calendar month. The present case pertains to the period prior to the amendment in Rule 12 by which a specific date i.e., on or before 10th day of the month succeeding the month for which the return has to be filed, has been specified. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the amendment in the year 2011 is that it ‘the amendment’, fortifies that there was no date prescribed prior to the amendment and consequently, the same has been specified by way of amendment and consequently, there would be no liability for payment of interest. The said submission also deserves rejection. Even if there was no specified date, as has now been incorporated in Rule 12, it cannot be said that there was no date prescribed for filing return or/and payment of tax - Now in view of the amendment of Rule 12 (1) the said period is ‘on or before 10th day of the month succeeding the month for which the return has to be filed’. From the aforesaid provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7, 11, 12 of the Act 1987; the Rules 12 unamended (as the present case is prior to amendment), 13, 24 of the Rules 1987 and Form-V, it is evident that the liability for payment of interest on tax is on the assessee, if the assessee does not deduct the tax at the time of payment of salary or wages. Liability would also be if after deducting, the assessee fails to pay the tax as required by or under the Act. Such liability was monthly liability for payment of tax and filing of returns. This liability to pay the interest is in addition to the amount of profession tax if the same was not paid on monthly basis i.e., up to the last date of the succeeding month for which the return had to be filed. There are no substance in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no liability to make payment of interest, as there was no time specified for payment of professional tax - the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. Petition dismissed.
|