1984 (11) TMI 292 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
2. Validity of notices of demand issued under Section 24(3) of the Act before its amendment by Act 22 of 1982.
3. Validity of notices issued under Rule 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
4. Requirement of opportunity to be heard before levying penalty under Section 24(3).
5. Constitutional challenges to Section 24(3) based on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
6. Scope of Rule 18(3) and its interaction with Section 24(3).

Summary:

1. Validity of Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959:
The court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 24(3) of the Act. It was determined that Section 24(3) is compensatory in nature, akin to interest, rather than a penalty. The provision aims to compensate the state for the delay in payment of tax by the dealer.

2. Validity of Notices of Demand under Section 24(3) before Amendment:
The court found that demands made under Section 24(3) before its amendment by Act 22 of 1982 were valid. However, it was clarified that the penalty should be calculated for the actual period of delay and not for the entire month if the delay was less than a month.

3. Validity of Notices under Rule 18(3):
The court held that Section 24(3) does not automatically apply to cases where dealers file monthly returns under Rule 18(3). The provision for penalty under Section 24(3) can only be invoked if there is a notice of assessment as contemplated by Section 12 and Rule 16.

4. Requirement of Opportunity to be Heard:
The court ruled that no prior opportunity for hearing is required before levying interest under Section 24(3). The liability to pay interest is automatic upon default in payment of tax, and the provision does not involve penal consequences that would necessitate a hearing.

5. Constitutional Challenges Based on Articles 14 and 19:
The court dismissed the challenges based on Articles 14 and 19, holding that Section 24(3) does not violate these constitutional provisions. The provision was found to be a reasonable method for ensuring prompt payment of taxes and is within the legislative competence of the state.

6. Scope of Rule 18(3) and Interaction with Section 24(3):
The court clarified that Rule 18(3) provides for the provisional acceptance of monthly returns and the tax payable becomes due on the date of receipt of the return. However, non-payment of tax under Rule 18(3) does not automatically attract the provisions of Section 24(3) unless there is a notice of assessment.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the validity of Section 24(3) but quashed demands made under Rule 18(3) for cases where the tax was not paid along with the monthly return. The court also emphasized that interest under Section 24(3) should be calculated for the actual period of delay. The judgments in individual cases were accordingly adjusted based on these principles.