9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners for the four quarters ending March 31, 1999, the assessment was completed. Subsequently, suo motu revision proceedings under section 80 of the Act, 1994 was started by the respondent No. 2 on the basis of certain records seized after the assessment. By the said revisional order dated January 27, 2004, the respondent No. 2 charged interest from the due date of filing of returns. The petitioner, since had no deliberate intention to suppress any sales, the interest so levied by the respondent No. 2 is illegal. It should have been calculated if at all, only from the date of expiry mentioned in the demand notice. The order passed by the respondent No. 2 is, therefore, not maintainable and is liable to be set aside. On behalf of the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited v. State of Haryana reported in [1994] 95 STC 188, while dealing with the similar provisions of section 25 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act has held that interest is due only on the amount of tax payable on the basis of the returns and so long as the dealer pays the tax which, according to him, is due on the basis of the information supplied in the returns filed by him, there would be no default on his part to meet his statutory obligation and the law does not envisage the dealer to predict the final assessment when he filed the returns and expects him to pay the tax on that basis to avoid liability to pay interest. Thus, we find that interest under section 31 can be charged only on the expiry of the last date of filing quarterly r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that this is a case of deliberate suppression of sales, the Act, 1994 provides separate provision for charging penalty for concealment of sales and for furnishing incorrect sales and purchase. Therefore, application of section 31 in the present case, in our opinion, is unwarranted under law. The section 32 states regarding the liability for payment of tax after assessment. The liability under section 32 would only arise if the dealer fails to make payment of tax and penalty within the time specified in a notice issued under section 47 of the Act, 1994. In a case, reported in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422, the Supreme Court held that the provisions for interest is to be construed as substantive law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
