2011 (7) TMI 1057 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

The demand order was directed to be kept in abeyance, which means, that there was no demand against the petitioner pending in view of the order of this court, which has attained finality. The order of demand could be revived on the failure of the petitioner, to pay the amount in instalment as directed by this court. It is not the case of the respondent, that there was any default in payment. Consequently, in view of the order passed by this court, directing to keep the demand in abeyance, the demand of interest by the respondent, therefore, is totally misconceived, and not warranted under law. The payment under the order of this court, cannot be said to be belated, as the demand was ordered to be kept in abeyance.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to demand notice for interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act.
2. Competency of writ petition in light of alternative statutory remedy of revision.
3. Reliance on judgment under challenge in appeal.
4. Interpretation of court order directing payment in instalments and its impact on interest demand.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Demand Notice for Interest:
The petitioner, a carbide industry owner, faced a demand notice for interest under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act due to alleged delayed payment despite court-approved instalments. The petitioner argued that allowing instalment payment precluded the interest demand. The petitioner cited a court decision emphasizing that when instalments are permitted, interest demand for delayed payment is unwarranted. The respondent contended that the petitioner had a statutory revision remedy under section 33(1) of the Act. However, the court found the demand notice contrary to its directions and rejected the need for revision, as the revisional authority would be bound by the court's order. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned orders demanding interest.

2. Competency of Writ Petition vs. Statutory Remedy:
The respondent argued that the writ petition was not competent due to the availability of a statutory revision remedy. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that the impugned order's contradiction with court directions made the revision redundant. The court emphasized that the order's misinterpretation rendered the revision process a mere formality, as the revisional authority would be obligated to follow the court's order.

3. Reliance on Judgment Under Appeal:
The respondent disputed the petitioner's reliance on a court judgment under appeal, claiming it lacked merit. The court clarified that as the appeal was not yet numbered, and no interim order was issued, it could not be considered pending. Therefore, the court upheld the relevance of the judgment in question, emphasizing that the appeal status did not diminish its applicability in the present case.

4. Interpretation of Court Order on Instalment Payment and Interest Demand:
The court analyzed its previous order directing the petitioner to pay in instalments and keep the demand in abeyance. As there was no default in payment, the court deemed the interest demand baseless. The court emphasized that the demand for interest was misconceived, as the payment was not belated due to the order keeping the demand in abeyance. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned orders demanding interest.

In conclusion, the court's detailed analysis and interpretation of the legal principles surrounding the demand notice for interest under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the competency of the writ petition vis-a-vis the statutory remedy, the reliance on a judgment under appeal, and the impact of court orders on instalment payments and interest demands resulted in a favorable outcome for the petitioner, with the impugned orders being quashed.