TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x by cheque alongwith return on June 29, 1982. It appears that the cheque was not presented in the bank up to July 21, 1982 and on July 22, 1982, Income-tax department had attached the bank account of the dealer which was released on July 29, 1982. It appears that the cheque was presented with the bank during the period July 22, 1982 to July 29, 1982 and the same was dishonoured. Dealer on receipt of an information that the cheque was dishonoured, deposited the admitted tax on July 30, 1982 by pay order. Later on, the assessing authority issued notice directing the dealer to deposit interest on the admitted tax under section 8(1) for late deposit of tax, inasmuch as, tax was due to be deposited on June 30, 1982 while it was deposited on Jul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid cheque. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the payment when made was a valid discharge of the amount, due against it as there was money available in the bank account and the cheque was dishonoured because income-tax raid was conducted on the appellant-firm and the bank account was seized on July 22, 1982 under the orders of Commissioner, Income-tax, Kanpur, hence, no interest could have been charged from the payment. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that for the charge of interest under section 8 (1), consideration of mala fide or reasonable cause as considered by the Tribunal, was not relevant. He submitted that the payment by cheque was conditional payment subject to its encashment and since the cheque was not encashed, it could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths, therefore, after the issuance of cheque, party should be vigilant and careful that whenever the cheque is presented within six months, it should be encashed. But in the present case, the cheque was presented between July 22, 1982 to July 29, 1982 and was dishonoured. The presentation of cheque during the aforesaid period cannot be said to be presentation in an unreasonable period and cannot said to be unreasonable delay in presentation of cheque on the part of the Sales Tax Department. If the bank account of the dealer was attached by Income-tax Department on July 22, 1982, the dealer should have taken necessary steps and should have asked the Sales Tax Officer, not to present the cheque. No such steps have been taken. In any view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o do its duty and realise the proceeds of the cheque in time. It is also evident from the correspondence referred earlier that the petitioner had made offer more than once to revalidate the cheque or to issue fresh cheque in lieu of the earlier one on the condition that the petitioner shall not be made liable for any interest on account of delayed payment, but such an offer was neither accepted nor turned down. In such a situation if the tax could not be realised, the department itself has to be blamed. Liability to pay interest under section 8(1) accrues only when the default in payment of admitted tax is attributable to the assessee alone, which is not the situation, as it obtained in the instant case . As stated above in the present case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|