9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s tax accounts for the assessment period from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999 and for the period from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000 have been submitted before the respondent/Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in para 3 of the affidavit in W.P.(MD) No. 11717 of 2005 has categorically stated that in respect of year 1998-99, a sum of Rs. 42,912 has to be paid under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and a sum of Rs. 18,270 has to be paid towards Central sales tax. In respect of the year, 1999-2000, a sum of Rs. 41,580 has to be paid by the petitioner as Tamil Nadu general sales tax and towards Central sales tax, a sum of Rs. 21,600 will have to be paid. The specific plea of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the assessment order pertaining to the years 1998-99, 1999-2000, that the demand in form B3 as per section 18(6) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act has not been served on the petitioner in respect of Sree Krishna Carbide Industry. The respondent has issued an auction notice dated December 24, 2002 bringing the movable property of the petitioner for auction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage, it is useful for this court to refer to the order passed by this court in W.P.(MD) No. 787 of 2004 dated August 27, 2004 between S. Manikandamariappan and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District, wherein at paragraph 3, it is enjoined as follows: "The petitioner should pay a sum of Rs. 53,860 within one week from this date and the remaining sum of Rs. 3,50,000 should be paid in six equal instalments. The first instalment should be paid on or before October 1, 2004 and so on, on the first of every succeeding month till the payment of the sixth instalment. The respondent shall keep the impugned order dated June 9, 2004 in abeyance and in the event of the petitioners failing to comply with the payment of any one of the instalments it will be open for the respondent to implement the impugned notice without any further reference to this court. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of on above terms." Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has been permitted to pay a sum of Rs. 52,860 within one week from the date of order, namely, August 27, 2004 and the balance of Rs. 3,50,000 will have to be remitted by the petitioner in six instalments, etc. Admittedly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no belated payment and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to levy the surcharge on the belated payment in respect of electricity tax. . . . 15. In other words, the licensee acts as a collecting agent for the Government and ultimate recipient of tax is the Government and the Government alone can impose any interest on the belated payment of electricity tax and it is made clear under section 8 of the said Act. 16. As per clause 20.01 of the terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the licensee is entitled to collect belated payment only on the amount due and payable to the licensee, namely, consumption charges. As the electricity tax is not the amount due and payable to the licensee and it is payable only to the Government, the licensee, the respondent herein, has no right to collect the surcharge on the belated payment of electricity tax and therefore, the claim of the respondent of a sum of Rs. 2,34,308 being the belated payment of surcharge for the non-payment of E-tax on time, cannot be sustained and the respondent is not entitled to levy any surcharge on the E-tax. 17. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the demand of the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act clearly points out that the claim of interest as per sub-sections (3) and (3A) of section 24 of the Act is an automatic one in ordinary or general cases. It is to be pointed out that a recovery of penalty or interest payable as per section 25 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, shall be deemed to be tax under this Act for the purposes of collection and recovery and shall be without prejudice to the institution of any proceeding for an offence under this Act, or for the recovery of the entire amount remaining unpaid under this Act. Indeed, ordinarily, there is no discretion vested with the authority under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to desist from levying interest or reducing the same. Also, no notice or providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee is essential, as opined by this court. In law, there is no estoppel against a statute. But, in the present case on hand, this court earlier in W.P.(MD) No. 787 of 2004 (S. Manikandamariappan v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram, Tuticorin District) has permitted the petitioner therein to pay the due tax amount/liability in instalments. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
