9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1130 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of Interest - Section 24 (3) of the TNGST Act - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of EID. PARRY (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENNAI (AND ANOTHER APPEAL) 2005 (5) TMI 302 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that the impugned proceedings, levying interest under Section 24 (3) of the Act are quashed - levying interest under Section 24 (3) of the Act are quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by revisional authority regarding levy of penalty. Analysis: The petitioners, registered dealers, challenged orders passed by the revisional authority confirming the levy of penalty. The court referred to a previous case where a similar issue was considered, and the decision was in favor of the dealer. The court analyzed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and the issue of interest payment under Section 24(3) of the Act. It was noted that the petitioner had filed returns, claimed exemption, and paid the tax after a legal issue was resolved by the Supreme Court. The court cited a Supreme Court decision that favored the dealer on a similar issue. The court also referred to another case where the issue of differential tax amount and penalty was discussed, and the decision was in favor of the dealer based on legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that once returns are accepted, there should be no assessment, and dues can be claimed. In the case at hand, the court found that the petitioner did not admit the return, and the assessment was completed after a significant delay. The court held that the demand for interest was not valid based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned proceedings levying interest under Section 24(3) of the Act, and did not impose any costs. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the writ petitions were covered by a previous decision, which was not disputed by the respondents. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the proceedings levying interest under Section 24(3) of the Act, and did not order any costs to be paid.
|
