TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever informed that the said cheque has been dishonoured by the Bank - The department cannot take the advantage of its own wrong - The demand of interest from the petitioner is not justified - The writ petition succeeds and is allowed - The impugned notice dated 1.1.1990 filed as annexure-5 to the writ petition demanding interest quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Tax No.-2138 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2013 - Hon'ble Prakash Krishna And Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,JJ. For the Petitioner : B. K. Pandey For the Respondent : S.C. ORDER The petitioner a registered dealer under the U.P Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act is carrying on the business in Kerana Spices and dry foods etc. on whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presented before the concerned Bank, the fault lies with the department. The submission is that there being no fault on the part of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the interest on Rs.33,904.87. In reply, the learned standing counsel for the department submits that the fact remains that the cheque was not encashed. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the interest. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Filing of cheque for Rs.33,904.87 by the petitioner towards the admitted tax within time is not in dispute. In paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the cheque was presented by the office to the State Bank of India but it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 49. "It would also be not possible for a dealer to make a regular check after depositing the said cheque as to whether the same has been cncashed or not by the Department. On the contrary it is obligatory and in the interest of the revenue by the department in case the said cheque is sent to the bank for encashment to intimate its result to the dealer concerned in case it is not encashed. We find in the present case the averment is missing right from the date the said cheque was tendered till the assessment order was passed and in view of this fact we find the charging of interest in the recovery certificate is not correct". Almost identical view has been taken in M/s Baldeo Prasad Sita Ram versus State of U.P 1992 UPTC 36. Viewed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
