TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sales of chains and straps as the sales of accessories, and therefore, levied a tax @ 10 per cent on their turnover. The demand was accordingly raised by the Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner, then had deposited the entire excess amount of sales tax amounting to Rs. 8,027.84 for the assessment year 1965-66 and half of the excess amount for the assessment year 1964-65 and obtained a stay order for the remaining half amount. The petitioner then appealed to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who by the orders dated 19th June, 1972 and 1st November, 1971 allowed the appeals for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively. It was held by him that the chains and straps of watches were unclassified items and not the accessories. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax was determined, as this Court took the view that sales of the chains and straps being sales of accessories, were liable to tax @ 10 per cent. Thereupon, the petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs. 8,027.84 for the assessment year 1965-66. This amount had been deposited earlier also by the petitioner, but then after the order of the Assistant Commissioner (judicial), it was refunded and was adjusted towards the demand due for the assessment year 1964-65. The Sales Tax Officer issued notices for the two years on 1st March, 1980 on recomputation of the demand, conforming to the orders passed under section 11(8) and thereby the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 2,967.36 for the assessment year 1964-65 and Rs. 8,027.84 for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of the High Court, the orders of the assessing authority stood revived and the petitioner having not paid the taxes as per the orders of the assessing authority, there was a default on the part of the petitioner, and therefore, interest became payable therefrom. The short contention of the petitioner is that there was no default on its part, as the demand notices issued by the assessing authority soon after the orders were passed and the demand notices issued pursuant to the orders passed under section 11(8) were fully complied with. There being no non-compliance of the demand notices, the petitioner contended that the demand of interest was illegal. To understand the scheme of the Act regarding recovery of interest, complete und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1-B) inasmuch as the demand notices issued twiceone soon after making assessment and the other after the order under section 11(8) was passed by the revisional authority, were fully complied with by the petitioner. The question for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, it can be said that there remained any unpaid amount. Admittedly, the demand notices were issued twice after making the assessment and after the order under section 11(8) was passed by the revisional authority, conforming to the order of the High Court given on reference. Both the demand notices were duly complied with by the petitioner. What the Revenue contended is that the tax paid by the petitioner in compliance with the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lead to a conclusion that there was unpaid amount on the part of the petitioner within the meaning of sub-section (1-B). I find substance in the submission of Sri Bharatji that on these facts, there was no unpaid amount and that there would have been unpaid amount only when the petitioner failed to comply with the notices of demand. When the demand notices were fully complied with and when the refund was made as per the direction of the higher authority, the petitioner could not be blamed for not having paid the tax in full. The position would have been different, had the petitioner not complied with the demand notices. No doubt, the order of the assessing officer taxing the petitioner @ 10 per cent stood revived by the order of the High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner within the meaning of sub-section (1-B) of section 8 in this case. A decision of this Court in the case of Annapurna Biscuit Co. v. State [1982] 50 STC 56; 1980 UPTC 1320 decided along with other cases fully supports my view. In this authority also, the question of interpretation of section 8 of the Act, 1948 was involved. The question was whether interest could be charged from the assessee who paid the tax as per the legal position and the interpretation prevailing at the time of filing return, but not as per the interpretation or the retrospective legislation that emerges subsequently. The view taken by this Court was that if the tax was paid by the assessee as per the legal position obtaining at the time of filing return, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
