9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 854X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e date of filing of the return. Further direction has been given to the Assessing Authority to recalculate the interest on the additional demand. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, has referred to the order dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority (Annexure A-2) wherein the order passed by the assessing authority was modified on two grounds:- 1. Income worth Rs. 2,06,807/- received by the dealer from M/s. Asia Motor Works against the repair of accidental trucks is eligible to tax as no sale of parts consumed in the repair of accidental vehicle has been shown by the dealer firm nor levied by the Assessing Authority in the assessment. The tax on Rs. 2,06,807/- which comes to Rs. 27,143/- is now levied. 2. The warranty claim of Rs. 22,56,885/- received in the shape of credit notes form the company i.e. M/s. Asia Motor Works in respect of the goods replaced during warranty claim and reduced from purchases are liable to tax and the tax levied is Rs. 2,96,216/-. 3. Hence the total tax levied was Rs. 3,23,359/- (1+2) was payable by the dealer alognwith quarterly returns. After making the assessment by the Revisiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red under sub sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 14 of the HVAT Act and hence the assessee was liable to pay interest also as provided in sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, the revisional authority was right in imposing the interest as per Section 14(6) of the HVAT Act. 6. She has further referred to Division Bench judgment passed by this Court in Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mill Ltd. vs. State of Punjab 2017(7) G.S.T.L. 179 wherein this Court was considering the liability to pay tax, interest and penalty under Section 32 and 53 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 which are pari materia same to the HVAT Act. The Division Bench held that as per Section 26(3), every person is bound to pay the full amount of tax due from him as per the provisions of the Act and not to the amount according to the assessee is payable. Thus the liability for payment of interest under Section 32(1) is from the due date for payment and the due date for payment would be the date on which the payment is liable to be made under Rule 36, i.e. the date he is liable to file return. 7. She has further referred to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Commissioner of Sales Tax vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax which they are liable to pay and (iii) those who have filed a return making a wrong claim that either the whole or any part of the turnover is not taxable and who are subsequently found to have made a wrong claim, would be placed in the same position and they would all be liable to pay interest on the amount of tax which they are liable to pay but have not paid as required by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. We are of opinion that this view is in conformity with the legislative intention in enacting Section 11B of the Act. 34. We have carefully gone through the decision of five learned judges of this Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Ghasi Lal and we are humbly of opinion that it is distinguishable from the present case. In Ghasi Lal case (supra), this Court was concerned with the question of sustainability of penalties imposed under the Act and not interest leviable under Section 11B. The relevant facts in that case were these: The respondent therein who was a dealer within the meaning of the Act filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the making of assessment on his turnover for the year 1955-56 on the ground that the Rules which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cases pertain to Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 where the scheme was entirely different. The dealer therein was liable to pay interest under Section 25(5) if the tax has not been deposited by him as required under sub Section 2-A and sub Section 3. Under the Act, 1973, the dealer was liable to pay tax as per monthly or quarterly returns. On failure to do so, he was liable to pay interest under Section 25(5) of the Act. She further argued that the provision of Section 23 of the HVAT Act, 2003 is not applicable to the controversy in question as the interest as per Section 23 is applicable after finalization of demand wherein the interest is leviable if the dealer does not pay the additional demand within 30 days of service of notice of demand or that supply of the order to the assessee. In the present case, the revisional proceedings have been carried out under HVAT Act, 2003. However, with respect to interest, the relevant Section is 14(6). 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the respondents in United Riceland Limited and another vs. State of Haryana and others (1997) 104 STC 362 (Pun), and Chaudhary Tractor Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
