TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the assessee's claim for allowing Sales-tax liability of Rs. 10,29,293 which was outstanding as on 31st March, 1987, but paid on 31st July, 1987, in total disregard of the provisions of s. 43B as it stood before the amendment by Finance Act, 1987, which provided disallowance of such liability. 3. A show cause notice was issued on 4th Aug., 1994, and was served on the assessee on 9th Aug., 1994, fixing the hearing on 17th Aug., 1994. On assessee's request, the hearing was adjourned to 7th Sept., 1994. On that date, nobody personally attended on behalf of the assessee but a written reply dt. 6th Sept., 1994, was placed on record wherein the assessee stated that in view of the facts and legal decisions discussed in the written reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unpaid sales-tax liability appearing to Rs. 10,29,293 though paid before the due date but was outstanding as on 31st March, 1987, and, therefore, the allowance of the same, as deduction by the AO was also wrong and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is against this order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned authorised representative for the assessee submitted that the interest outstanding is allowable under s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. He further submitted that interest liability is an allowable expenditure as provided under s. 11B of the Rajasthan Sales-tax Act, 1954. The same has been allowed by the ITO, B Ward, Udaipur and the Dy. CIT (Asst.), Udaipur. This view is supported by the decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard to the sales-tax paid before the filing of the return is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, is not correct. He further contended that the assessee has paid this amount before the due date of filing of the return under s. 139, i.e., before 31st July, 1987. For this proposition, he relied upon many other various High Courts judgments, the Patna High Court decision in the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India (1991) 91 CTR (Pat) 19 : (1991) 189 ITR 70 (Pat) against which the SLP preferred by the Revenue was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8th May, 1991, in the case of CIT vs. Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores : SLP (Civil) No. 11793 of 1991 and SLP (Civil) 6467 of 1991. 7. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Provident Investment Co. Ltd. (1957) 32 ITR 190 (SC). The principle was well stated by their Lordships, Justice Bhagwati (as he was then) in the following lines: "In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax, one must have regard to the strict letter of the law. If the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." Shah J. has formulated the principle thus: "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly, nothing can be read into and nothing should be brought into to fill in certain gap by the interpreting authority, the proposition cannot be faulted with. This principle has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Provident Investment Co. Ltd. It is true that s. 43B does not speak of interest but it speaks of (a) any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannution fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees; (c) any sum referred to in cl. (ii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36; or (d) any sum payable by the assessee as interest on any loan or borrowing from any public ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance of unpaid sales-tax under s. 43B amounting to Rs. 10,29,293, we are of the view that the order of the learned CIT cannot be upheld. In the case of Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Patna High Court held that the proviso to s. 43B is retrospective in operation and sales-tax for last quarter paid before the filing of the return, the same is to be allowed as deduction. The SLP preferred by the Revenue against this decision of the Patna High Court was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned CIT in holding that the AO was not justified in allowing the assessee's claim of unpaid sales-tax liability of Rs. 10,29,293 which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
