TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 20,15,601. Thereafter, it received a notice in form 29 dated March 17, 1992, from the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Central Assessment Circle I, Greams Road, Madras-6 (third respondent) levying interest of Rs. 40,312 under section 24(3) of the Act, calculated at the rate of two per cent per month on the tax due, that is to say on Rs. 20,15,601. Aggrieved by the demand so raised, a revision had been filed under section 33 before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) (North), Ajith Buildings, III Floor, Madras-6 (second respondent), who dismissed the same in his proceedings in R.P. No. 203/92 dated August 28, 1992. A further revision was filed under section 35 before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-IV, Office of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5 (first respondent), who in turn dismissed the same in his proceedings in D.Dis. No. JJ1/116743/92 dated April 6, 1993. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 16066 of 1993 to quash the proceedings of the first respondent dated April 6, 1993, confirming the orders of the second respondent in R.P. No. 203/92, dated August 28, 1992-and that of the third respondent d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect return for which tax due was not assessed at any time as required by rule 18(4) of the Rules. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422. 3.. In the light of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the following point arises for consideration in this writ appeal: "Having regard to the provisions contained in sections 13(2), 24(1) and 24(3) of the Act and rule 18(2) of the Rules with regard to self-assessment, is it open to the appellant, who failed to pay the entire tax due on the basis of actual turnover for the month of December, 1991, which was due on January 20, 1992, but paid only a portion of the tax due on that date on the basis of the original return filed on January 20, 1992, and paid the differential tax by filing a revised return on February 19, 1992, to claim that only on the date of filing the revised return on February 19, 1992, the differential tax becomes due and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay interest on the differential tax paid on February 19, 1992, under section 24(3) of the Act?" 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2). Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5), the dealer shall submit a return in form A-1 showing the total and taxable turnover for each month and the amount or amounts actually collected by him by way of tax or taxes during that month. The return for each month shall be submitted so as to reach the assessing authority on or before the 20th of the succeeding month. Along with the return, he shall also submit proof of payment as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 55 for the full amount of the tax or taxes payable under any of the section 3, 3-A, 3-B, 4, 5 or 7-A for the month to which the return relates after deducting therefrom the amount, if any, claimed as refund due in the month under rule 23. (3) The return in form A-1 so filed shall, subject to the provisions of sub- rule (4), be provisionally accepted. If the return is submitted without proof of payment as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 55 for the full amount of tax payable after deducting therefrom the amount, if any, claimed as reimbursement or refund due in the month under rule 23, such amount of tax shall become due on the date of receipt of the return or on the last due date as prescribed in sub-rule (2), whicheve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to the dealer to file the return on any date and not necessarily on the last date prescribed under rule 18(2) of the Rules, because the aforesaid section 13(2) of the Act specifically provided that the tax under the sub-section shall become due without any notice of demand to the dealer on the date of receipt of the return or on the last due date as prescribed whichever is later. It was further contended in that case, that as the return has been filed on November 24, 1992, along with the tax-paid receipt, though it is later to the last due date prescribed under rule 18(2), it cannot be held, in the light of the provisions contained in section 13(2) of the Act that there is delay either in filing the return or in the payment of tax. By the judgment dated March 29, 1994* in Writ Appeal No. 1351 of 1993, this Bench, speaking through my Lord the Chief Justice, while repelling the above contention of the appellant in that case, held as follows: "It may be relevant to notice that sub-section (2) of section 13 specifically provides that the last due date and the date for receipt of the return, are to be Reported in [1995] 96 STC 26 (Mad.). prescribed by the Rules. Accordingly, ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent to the date prescribed under the Rules. In the interpretation of a statute, what is also to be borne in mind, is the intendment of the legislation. The intendment of sub-section (2) of section 13 is to prescribe the due date for payment of the tax as well as the last date for filing the returns and give latitude to the dealer to pay the tax due on any date prior to the last date prescribed for filing of the return. If this intention has to be respected and enforced, it has to be necessarily held that sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act does not give any latitude or freedom or liberty to the dealer to file the return on any date subsequent to the 20th of the succeeding month in the case of self-assessment. If the interpretation placed by learned counsel for the appellant on sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act is accepted, the very object and intendment of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act, prescribing the last date for payment of the tax due, would be rendered nugatory. Consequently, it would become impracticable or not possible to enforce the very provisions contained in section 13(2), as it would be open to the dealer to choose any date for filing the retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay, in addition to the tax due, interest at 2 per cent per month for such amount for the entire period of default. 8.. In the present case, admittedly the actual turnover for December, 1991, was Rs. 3,69,72,098, as seen from the revised return filed on February 19, 1992. Therefore, the appellant was liable to pay the tax due on the actual turnover of Rs. 3,69,72,098 on or before January 20, 1992 and on that date the entire tax was due irrespective of the date of filing of the revised return. On January 20, Reported in [1995] 96 STC 26 (Mad.). 1992, the appellant filed the return declaring a turnover of only Rs. 2,81,58,579 and had paid tax due on the said turnover of Rs. 2,81,58,579 being Rs. 44,62,791. Again on February 19, 1992, after a delay of 30 days from the due date for payment, the appellant filed a revised return and paid the differential tax amounting to Rs. 20,15,601 though the entire tax was actually due on January 20, 1992. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest at 2 per cent per month on the tax arrears of Rs. 20,15,601 from January 20, 1992, on which date the tax became due, till February 19, 1992, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sale price for the payment of sales tax. In Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota [1979] 43 STC 13 the apex Court held that freight element formed part of the price of cement and sales tax was leviable on the sale price inclusive of the freight amount. The appellant in that case was therefore, required to pay sales tax on the sale price, inclusive of the freight. The point that arose for consideration before the apex Court was, whether the appellant was liable to pay interest on additional sales tax, which had to be paid on the inclusion of freight amount in calculating the sale price. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the interest under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act can be charged only for the period subsequent to the determination of sales tax under the final assessment order and that too after the expiry of the period allowed under the notice of demand issued on finalisation of the assessment. On the other hand, the Revenue in that case, contended that interest becomes payable from the date on which the original return was filed under section 7(2) or 7(2A) of the Rajasthan Sales Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajasthan Sales Tax Act which are not in pari materia with the provisions in sections 13(2), 24(1), 24(3), of the Act and rule 18(2) of the Rules with which we are concerned. It is seen from the discussion at page 437 in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422 that section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act enjoins on every dealer that he shall furnish prescribed returns for the prescribed period within the prescribed time to the assessing authorities. By proviso to section 7(1), the time can be extended by not more than 15 days. The corresponding provision in the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules is rule 18(2) which says that the dealer shall submit the return so as to reach the assessing authority on or before the 20th of the succeeding month, and along with the return the dealer should also submit proof of payment for the full amount of tax payable under any of the section 3, 3-A, 3-B, 4, 5 or 7-A of the Act for the month to which the return relates. There is no provision in rule 18(2) of the Rules for extending the time for submission of the returns as provided in section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. We are of the view that inasmuch as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
