9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of March 1998 in that month itself, on a letter written by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad calling upon it to do so and assuring that excess payment could be adjusted in the month of April 1998. Previously also, the petitioner used to deposit excess amount as advance tax on the request made by the department and such advance tax was adjusted in the Ist quarter of next financial year. The petitioner received three notices dated 20.10.1999 as issued by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner had made short payment of tax amount of Rs.70,19,943/- and had claimed excess payment of Rs.72,89,684/- in the last quarter of 1997-98. The petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to complete the assessment for the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued another notice which was received by it on 20.04.2001. Demand for payment of interest on an amount of Rs.72,89,684/- under Section 25 (5) of the Act, 1973 was raised vide this notice. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice alleging that the impugned demand was not sustainable. It has challenged the validity of this notice by making prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the said notice (Annexure P-10) and also prayed for passing a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.2 to adjust the amount already paid from the date of accrual of payment. 3. The respondents in their written reply alleged that unless and until the excess amount deposited by the petitioner was quantified, the same could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the last date for the payment of tax. It is well settled proposition of law that an assessee can be directed to pay interest only where he is shown to have attempted to contravene the provisions of the Act, 1973 with the object to evade payment of rightful tax levied thereunder. In M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the considerations relevant for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax had held that the liability to pay the penalty did not arise merely upon the proof of default in registering a dealer. Such a liability could be fastened only where the assessee was shown to have attempted to contravene the provisions of the Act, 1973 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s action of respondent is certainly against the principles of natural justice. The well settled proposition of law is that penalty either by way of claiming interest or otherwise should not ordinarily be imposed unless the assessee either acted deliberately in defiance or disregard of its obligation. Unquestionably, an authority is competent to impose penalty in case, of a technical or intentional breach of provisions of an Act but where such breach flows from a bona fide belief, then the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the Statute. 7. In view of this discussion, we are inclined to hold that the impugned notice as served upon the petitioner thereby raising demand of interest on the amount of Rs.72,89,684/- is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
