TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Act, 1963 ("the Act"), nor their letter of authority holder, one Garuda International. The petitioner did not file any return of the turnover relating to the above transaction, for the alleged reason that the sale was in the course of import. The first respondent, assessing authority, however, thought otherwise. After issuing notices to the petitioner and Garuda International, the details of which it is unnecessary to recite, the first respondent completed an assessment, exhibit P4, dated October 10, 1984, on the petitioner making it liable for a tax of Rs. 4,98,788 and surcharge of Rs. 36,275.52. This order was served on the petitioner on March 4, 1985, with notices of demand, exhibits P2 and P3, for tax and surcharge directing pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding on April 4. 1985, at 1 per cent for the two months, April and May, 1985. The rest of the demand is illegal. 5.. Government Pleader for the respondents however sustains the demand with the plea mentioned in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner had to file its return supported by proof of payment of the tax due on May 20, 1983 and since it had defaulted in doing so, it had to pay penal interest on the amount due from that date. It is, inter alia, pointed out that the petitioner had no quarrel about the assessment when it was eventually completed and that the amounts due were paid without demur in two instalments. The learned Government Pleader places reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the tax was due on self-assessment and the dealers liable for penal interest. 7.. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was bound by rule 21(7) to submit a return and pay the tax due on or before May 20, 1983. It is also true that liability for penal interest is attracted once there is an assessment including a self-assessment. But there should be an assessment, self (by the filing of return) or otherwise. There was no self-assessment in this case and the assessment giving rise to the demand and the liability for penal interest was served only on March 4, 1985. The decision in Abdulla [1992] 86 STC 259; 1992 KLJ (Tax Cases) 202 does not therefore come to the rescue of the respondents. 8.. This view no doubt leads to a posit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
