Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (3) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l order and notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax-10, Agra dated 27.01.2005 (Annexure-2 and 3A to 3J). The petitioner has further sought a direction in the nature of mandamus to restrain the opposite parties from demanding the interest in terms of the aforesaid notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax-10, Agra in compliance of the orders of the Commissioner, Trade Tax, Lucknow dated 14.01.2005. 2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was the manufacturer of ice cream and was doing business in the style of M/s Devyani Foods Limited, Agra. The petitioner was a registered dealer and applied for eligibility certificate under Section 4-A of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax, 1948 (hereinafter r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irected to deposit the admitted tax in terms of sub-rule 4 (b) of Rule 43 within three months from 23.12.2002, the day on which the unit was closed down. The deferment facility, however, was extended to the petitioner only till 23.12.2002. It was also mentioned in the order itself that on account of closure of business on 23.12.2002, the facility of deferment automatically comes to an end and tax amount ought to have deposited. It was also directed that if the amount is not deposited in terms of the aforesaid Rule, the Assessing Officer shall recover the entire amount of interest and tax. It was also not in dispute that the entire amount of admitted tax of Rs.25,68,833.55 till 23.12.2002 was deposited on 30.06.2004 by treasury challans as i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of closure of unit and not beyond that. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly passed the order dated 17.06.2004. It was incumbent upon the petitioner that as soon as the petitioner closed his business, petitioner ought to have deposited the entire tax within three months in terms of Rule 43(4) because the petitioner was fully aware that in view of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules, the deferment period cannot be extended beyond the date of closure of the unit and eligibility certificate granted under Section 4-A ceased to be operative. So, mere pendency of the application for deferment will not give any reason to extend the period for depositing of the amount which admittedly due after closure or discontinuance of busine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... year shall be paid by the manufacturer in a lump sum within one month of the expiry of the period of moratorium. (4) The moratorium shall cease and the total amount of the tax admittedly payable shall become payable: (a) on the date of discontinuance of business, where the manufacturer discontinues bushiness, within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act, (b) on the date on which the unit becomes ineligible for exemption under section 4-A; and the amount shall be paid in lump sum within three months of its so becoming payable. (5) The facility shall not be admissible in respect of the amount of tax assessed in excess of the tax admittedly payable by the manufacturer on the turnover admitted by him in the returns filed o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it of deferment of all the previous years till the date of closure of the unit and only asked the interest after three months from the date of closure of the unit till the date of actual deposit of tax by the petitioner. The benefit of deferment has already been extended by the Assessing Authority in terms of order of Commissioner dated 17.06.2004 to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay tax after closure of the unit in terms of sub-rule 4 of Rule 43 along with interest. 7. In view of above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in asking the petitioner for the payment of interest by the impugned orders and the recovery sought to be made cannot be said to be against the provisions of the Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates