2013 (5) TMI 649 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Realization of tax on book profit under Section 8B of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 - assessee s challenge to the applicability of Section 8B as amended by Act XXVII of 2010 as it could not be intended to tax income of the previous year i.e. 2008-2009, nor it could be intended that advance tax was payable in respect of such income - Held that - Unable to accept the submission of the assessee as under the scheme of the Act, the tax is payable for the agricultural income of the previous year. The assessment is made in next year i.e. in the assessment year at the applicable rate of tax. Admittedly, the amended provisions are applicable for the assessment year in question and the same could be applied to the previous year irrespective of the fact that in the previous year the said provision was not there. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned provisions are beyond legislative competence or violate fundamental rights. In absence thereof, only question is of interpretation. In the face of the plain language of the provisions of 8B it is not possible to hold that the amended provisions did not apply for the assessment year 2009-2010 as such provisions were brought for the first time in the assessment year. Same is the position with regard to liability to pay interest. Petitioner s reliance upon the judgment of J.K. Synthetics Limited Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, 1994 (5) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT to submit that failure to deposit tax due before making of assessment could not attract interest cannot apply to the present case. Therein, Section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 came up for consideration in the light of Section 7(2) of the said Act. Under the scheme of the Act, liability to pay interest arose on failure to make payment of the amount payable as per return. If the assessee has paid as per return, he was not liable to pay interest. This is not the position under the scheme of the present law. The advance tax liability has been created which requires the assessee to pay tax on bonafide estimate of the income failing which there is liability to pay interest. If payment is not made during the financial year, higher rate of interest is attracted. In view of above, no merit in these petitions.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the realization of tax on book profit under Section 8B of the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 for the Financial Year 2009-2010.
2. Challenge to the applicability of Section 8B as amended by Act XXVII of 2010.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and selling tea, challenged the tax on book profit under Section 8B for the Financial Year 2009-2010. The petitioner argued that the amended provisions should not apply to the previous year's income as the Act came into force on 1st April, 2009. However, the court held that tax is payable for the agricultural income of the previous year, and the amended provisions are applicable for the assessment year in question, regardless of their absence in the previous year. The court emphasized that the only issue is one of interpretation, and the petitioner did not challenge the legislative competence or fundamental rights violation.

2. The court examined the provisions related to advance tax liability under Section 35A, interest under Section 35C, and interest for deferment of advance tax under Section 35H. The court highlighted that the liability to pay advance tax is based on a bonafide estimate of income, and failure to pay attracts interest. The court differentiated the case from a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the distinct liability and consequences under the current law.

3. The court analyzed the amendment under Section 8B, which deems sixty percent of the book profit as agricultural income for taxation purposes. The court concluded that the plain language of the provisions mandates the application of the amended provisions for the assessment year 2009-2010, as they were introduced for the first time in that assessment year. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the challenge lacked merit, but clarified that the petitioner could raise other issues before the statutory forum in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the court upheld the applicability of the amended provisions for the assessment year in question, emphasizing the importance of interpreting the law as per its plain language and legislative intent. The judgment clarified the liability for advance tax and interest under the Act, highlighting the consequences of failing to pay tax based on a bonafide estimate of income.