9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I Bank, Kottayam. Those cheques were accepted by the 1st respondent and were encashed belatedly. Subsequently, 1st respondent passed Ext.P1 order, in which, for the belated realisation of the tax due from the petitioner, interest of Rs. 12,40,468/- was levied. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. In the counter affidavit, details regarding the dates of receipt of the cheques, dates of its presentation for encashment, dates of encashment and number of days delay have been furnished. It is stated that there was no delay on the part of the 1st respondent in presenting the cheques for encashment. According to the 1st respondent, immediately on receipt of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of a fresh return under sub- rule (5), in addition to the tax so payable, the interest payable under Section 31(5). Rule further provides that, on failure of the assessee in complying with the above requirement, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer, a demand notice in Form No.12 and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded within the time and in the manner specified therein. Sub Rule (7) also provides that, if the return is submitted without a treasury receipt, crossed cheque or crossed demand draft for the full amount of the tax payable in favour of the assessing authority, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a notice in Form No.12 and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded along with the interest, if any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay in realising the amount. On the other hand, they chose to send it to Kottayam for encashment and it was in that process the delay has occurred. 7. In my view, such a delay caused was for reasons which were not attributable to the petitioner and the question is whether the petitioner should be made liable for interest for the delay so occurred. To make the petitioner liable for interest, provisions of Section 31(5) should be applicable and to apply Section 31(5), there should have been default on the part of the petitioner in paying the tax within the time prescribed in the Act. 8. Even according to the respondents, tax could be paid along with the return by a crossed cheque. By this method, the petitioner has paid the tax in time, alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st respondent is at Malappuram, his functional jurisdiction extended to functions assigned by the Commissioner. In other words, the functional jurisdiction of the 1st respondent is not confined to Manjeri alone, going by the terms of the SRO. It is apparently on account of the above vagueness in the matter that the expression "within the jurisdiction" occurring in Rule 98 was substituted with the expression "in the headquarters" by SRO 7/08 dated 31/2/07. In this factual situation, I am unable to accept the case of the learned Government Pleader that there was non-compliance of Rule 98(1) on the part of the petitioner rendering him liable for interest on the ground of belated payment. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
