9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1973 (3) TMI 122 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 15-A(I)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for failure to deposit admitted tax within the prescribed time. 2. Applicability of clause (c) of section 15-A(I) for failure to pay assessed tax within the allowed time. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of vanaspati products, submitted its return for the first quarter of the assessment year 1972-73, disclosing a turnover and payable tax. The petitioner requested two months' time to deposit the tax, which was allowed by the Sales Tax Officer. The petitioner deposited the tax in instalments but was penalized for not depositing the entire amount within the specified time. The court held that the penalty imposed under section 15-A(I)(a) was unjustified as the failure to deposit admitted tax does not equate to a failure to file the return, as the two requirements are distinct and separate. The court referred to a previous judgment to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the penalty provision did not apply in this case. 2. The argument was raised that clause (c) of section 15-A(I) could be applicable for the failure to pay the assessed tax within the allowed time. However, the court clarified that the tax assessed refers to the tax determined payable by the assessing authority under specific provisions. In this case, no assessment order had been passed, and the petitioner had not defaulted in paying the assessed tax. The court highlighted that the petitioner's default, if any, was in relation to the tax required to be paid voluntarily based on the turnover shown in the return. Since this type of tax did not involve an assessment process, non-payment of admitted tax could lead to provisional assessment or prosecution but not to the imposition of a penalty under section 15-A. The court concluded that the penalty order was unauthorized and lacked jurisdiction, thereby quashing the penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Officer. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the penalty order, and awarded costs to the petitioner.
|
