TMI Blog1985 (6) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l income on February 24, 1972, which was found correct by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the assessment of interest at the sliding rate of 8% to 24% from May 1, 1970, to March 3 1, 1972, in exercise of the purported power under rule 11(2)(b)(i) to (ix) is illegal, void and accordingly it should be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of rule 11(2)(b)(i) to (ix) and the proviso thereto are illegal, void and ultra vires section 19 of the Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939 (for short " the Act "). The second contention is that the levy of interest beyond the date of submission of the return by the petitioner on February 24, 1972, is illegal and void and, accordingly, the impugned orders marked annexures A and B are liable to be quashed. The third contention is that the petitioner is liable to pay simple interest at 6 per cent. per annum from January 1, 1970, to February 28, 1970, and is not liable to pay any interest beyond February 28, 1970, as levied and demanded by the impugned orders. The first two questions are no longer " res integra ". In New Assam Valley Tea Company Limited v. Agrl. ITO [197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -(]) Every person, if his total agricultural income or the total agricultural income in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the limit of the taxable income prescribed in section 6, shall furnish before the 31st day of December of the relevant financial year, a return of his agricultural income or the agricultural income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed : Provided that, on an application made in the prescribed manner, the Superintendent of Taxes or Agricultural Income-tax Officer may, in his discretion, extend the date for furnishing the return up to a period not beyond the 28th day of February of the relevant financial year and simple interest at six per cent. per annum shall be payable from the 1st day of January of the relevant financial year to the date of furnishing the return as extended by the Superintendent of Taxes or Agricultural Income-tax Officer on the amount of agricultural income-tax payable on the total agricultural income as finally assessed, reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per centum per annum on the amount of agricultural income-tax due as per return with effect from the first day of January up to the date of filing the return or the 28th/29th day of February of the relevant financial year, whichever is earlier. (2) If any person submits the return of agricultural income under section 19 after the 28th/29th day of February of the relevant financial year or does not submit the return at all, he shall be liable to pay simple interest on the amount of agricultural income-tax as finally assessed, at the following rates: (a) at 6 per cent. per annum from the first day of January to the 28th/29th day of February..." It is thus seen that rule 11 (1) and (2)(a) of the Rules prescribe the liability of a person who fails to file the return of agricultural income under section 19 of the Act. Rule 11(1) prescribes the rate of interest leviable and the period during which he shall be liable to pay interest if he fails to comply with the terms of section 19 of the Act. Such defaulter is liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum on the amount of agricultural income-tax with effect from the 1st day of January to the date of filing of the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p to a maximum of 24% per annum It as maybe Prescribed " payable from the first day of March of the relevant financial year to the date of furnishing the return. As alluded, the rate of interest from the first day of January to the last day of February has been fixed under section 19 of the Act at 6% per annum. However, under section 19, there is no provision prescribing the rate of interest beyond the last day of February of the relevant financial year. The rates were prescribed under rule 11(2)(b)(i) to (ix). But the rule has been declared void. As such, the said rule is no longer in existence. Situated thus, we find that there was no law prescribing the rate of interest payable by a person who does not furnish the return beyond the 28th day of February of the relevant financial year. This appears to be inequitable. One may argue that the intendment of the Legislature is that until the rates are prescribed, the defaulter shall continue to pay interest at 6% per annum. But, admittedly, there is no prescription of the rate at which a defaulter shall be liable for non-submission of return, beyond the 28th day of February of the relevant financial year. As such, there is no authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a subject to tax, one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." One may cry hoarse that the construction that we favour leaves an easy loophole through which many persons may find an escape. That may be so, yet we must bear in mind that while construing a fiscal statute, the function of the court is not to give a strained and unnatural meaning to the provisions. We cannot strain the scope of the provisions by analogy or place upon it what is called a beneficial or equitable construction in order to prevent an anomaly or a supposed anomaly. There is no scope for repairs or reconstruction of a provision. The intention of the Legislature manifested in plain words must be accepted. If a provision of taxing s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial interpretation. Similar view has been expressed in Polestar Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax [1978] 1 SCC 636; AIR 1978 SC 897; [1978] 41 STC 409 (SC). Now let us turn to the moot question: Whether the petitioner who did not ask for extension of time and submitted the return far beyond the 28th day of February, 1970, is liable to pay any interest from March 1, 1970, onwards? The first proviso to section 19(1) of the Act provides that when an application is made to the concerned officer to extend the date for furnishing the return, the officer may so extend the date but not beyond the 28th day of February of the relevant financial year. However, the person, notwithstanding the said extension, is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the first day of January of the relevant financial year to the date of furnishing the return as extended by the officer. The proviso deals with the case of a person who makes an application for extension of time for furnishing the return. If the applicant fails to furnish return within the 28th day of February of the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
