9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %. The short levy of tax was quantified at Rs. 48,95,752/- and the petitioner was called upon to pay the said amount. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted its explanation on 09.01.2012 and 13.08.2012. Rejecting the petitioner's explanation, the respondent invoking his power under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, revised the assessment and directed the petitioner vide proceedings dated 16.08.2012 to pay Rs. 59,52,423/-, being the difference of tax, together with interest. Challenging the same, these five writ petitions have been filed. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the grounds set out in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. His pointed contention is that the petitioner had filed the returns under Form-L. As per Rule 7(1)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, every registered dealer who opts to pay tax under Section 6 or 8 shall file a return for each month in Form L on or before 20th of the succeeding month to the assessing authority along with proof of payment of tax. Section 8 of the Act deals with payment of tax at compounded rates. When the petitioner opted to pay tax as composition levy and the same was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the rate of four per cent of the taxable turnover. Explanation I.- For the purpose of computing the total turnover under this sub-section, the purchase turnover liable to tax under section 12 of this Act, shall be added to the sales turnover. Explanation II.- For the purpose of computing the total turnover under this sub-section, the sales turnover of all business units in a common premises sharing the common kitchen or common employees shall be added to the sales turnover of the business unit having higher turnover. (2)The dealer, who pays tax under clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall be entitled to input tax credit on the goods specified in the First Schedule purchased by him in the State." Section 8 of the Act reads as follows : "8.Payment of tax at compounded rate by hotels, restaurants, sweet-stalls and bakeries. - (1)(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 7, every dealer whose total turnover is not less than rupees ten lakhs but not more than rupees fifty lakhs for the year on the sale of ready to eat unbranded foods including sweets, savouries, unbranded non-alcoholic drinks and beverages served in or catered indoors or outdoors by h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed in the prescribed manner. The word "prescribed" would refer to what has been laid down in the relevant provisions. The question that arises for my consideration is whether as per the statutory scheme, the petitioner could have filed returns in Form-L. As per Rule 7(1)(e) as obtaining then, only a registered dealer opting to pay tax under Section 6 or 8 can file the return in Form-L. Section 8 can be invoked only by those registered dealers who fell within Section 7(1)(b) of the Act. Section 7(1) dealt with two categories, a)star hotels recognized as such by the Tourism Department and b)non-star hotels. Section 7(1)(a) dealt with star hotels while 7(1)(b) dealt with non-star hotels. Section 8 was not at all available to registered dealers running star hotels. This was because Section 8(1)(a) envisaged payment of tax at the rate specified in III Schedule. III Schedule reads as follows : "THE THIRD SCHEDULE (See Section 8) (Compounded rate for Hotels, Restaurants and Sweet Stalls) Sl.No Turnover slab Rate of tax (i) Where the total turnover exceeds ten lakhs of rupees, but does not exceed twenty-five lakhs of rupees. Twelve thousand rupees perannum (ii) Where the to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me to be passed only on 16.08.2012. Therefore, there cannot be direction to pay interest for the period preceding the said date. Though this contention is attractive, I have to necessarily reject the same because the petitioner had filed false returns. The petitioner is therefore liable to pay interest at the statutory rate from the date when the tax became due and payable by them. The petitioner by their conduct invited the impugned orders and have to blame themselves for the resulting consequences. The impugned orders do not call for any interference and I sustain them. 9.The next question is whether the petitioner has to pay interest on the difference in amount at the rate of 24% even for the period during which these writ petitions were pending before this Court. The writ petitions were admitted and Rule Nisi was issued on 05.10.2012. They were taken up for final disposal only in June 2019. The cases were adjourned as the government counsel wanted time to file counter. Counters were eventually filed on 01.08.2019. Records were called for on 26.08.2019 and the matters were directed to be listed on 13.09.2019. They came to be listed only now. The petitioner cannot be blamed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
