TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in favor of petitioner. - C.W.P. No. 6416 of 2005 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - Mr. Rajesh Bindal and Mr.Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Senior Advocate with Sandeep Goyal for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents JUDGMENT This order will dispose of two CWP Nos. 6416 and 9988 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts have been extracted from CWP No. 6416 of 2005. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and order dated 15.2.2005 (Annexure P-4), passed by Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxes Officer (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 276, which was followed in Paul Motor Store vs State of Punjab (2007) 10 VST 259 (P H), it was submitted that as the amount of tax demanded was paid within the time permitted, there was no question of charging of interest, as the amount of tax found to be due was required to be paid at that time. He further referred to an earlier order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal-I, Punjab, in M/s Fazilka Gas Service, Fazilka vs State of Punjab (2004) 24 PHT 265, where demand of interest under similar circumstances was set aside by the Tribunal but the decision was not followed in the case in hand. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while not disputing the judgments referred to by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the tax as assessed initially at the time of assessment was paid, however, in re-assessment proceedings, additional tax was found to be due for which interest and penalty was levied. The demand of interest on that account was quashed by this Court while referring to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in J. K. Synthetics Limited's (supra), Frick India Limited vs State of Haryana (1994) 95 STC 188, Maruti Wire Industries Private Limited vs Sales Tax Officer (2001) 122 STC 410 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in United Riceland Limited vs State of Haryana (1997) 104 STC 362. It was on the premise that an assessee cannot foresee the additional demand of tax on account of reassessment or in revision and the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
