Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 3 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssues Involved: 1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes 2. Compliance with Supreme Court's remand order 3. Validity of interest levied under Section 22 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 4. Binding nature of previous High Court and Supreme Court decisions Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes: The petitioners contended that the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes exceeded his jurisdiction by going beyond the direction issued by the Division Bench in its order dated 11.03.2015. The Division Bench had clearly stated that no tax could be levied if there was no tax demand prior to the issuance of the demand notice. The appellate authority was argued to have erred in law by holding that the statement submitted by the company was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 (1) (2) of the Act. 2. Compliance with Supreme Court's Remand Order: The Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the assessing authority to resolve whether the company had collected sales tax from consumers through various dealers on the entire resale price. The Court clarified that if the company had collected sales tax, it would have to deposit the entire amount collected along with 9% interest. The assessing authority found that the company had not collected any amount by way of sales tax, but levied interest at 24% on the difference between the resale price and the purchase price for delayed payment. The Division Bench had earlier set aside the assessment orders and demand notices, directing de novo assessments, which found nil demand for the assessment years, thus negating the question of interest payment. 3. Validity of Interest Levied under Section 22 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993: Section 22 mandates interest payment in three scenarios: - Subsection (1): For deficit payment of tax as per returns. - Subsection (2): For deficit payment found after assessment. - Subsection (3): For incorrect turnover in returns if the demand notice exceeds 10% of the amount stated in returns. The Division Bench determined that if there was no tax demand after de novo assessment, no interest could be levied. The present assessment found no balance due post the Supreme Court's order, but interest was imposed for delayed payment, which the court found unjustified as the earlier assessments were set aside and no taxable due was found. 4. Binding Nature of Previous High Court and Supreme Court Decisions: The court emphasized the principle of maintaining consistency and stability in the legal system by adhering to previous decisions. The Division Bench's determination that no interest could be levied if no tax was due after de novo assessment was binding. The court cited the case of Hari Singh vs. State of Haryana, underscoring the importance of consistent judicial opinions on similar legal issues to avoid judicial chaos. Conclusion: The court concluded that the decisions of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court were binding and that the assessing officer and appellate authority could not impose interest in derogation of these determinations. The impugned decisions to impose interest by the tax authorities were interfered with, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|