9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the provisions of sub-section (10) of section 13 of the Amending Act of 1984, as they were pending before this Court at the time when the amending Act of 1984 came into force. The question which arises in both these cases is as to whether interest could be levied under section 11B of the Act in respect of default of payment of tax for part of a month at the relevant time. The period of assessment in the case of M/s. Hemraj Udhyog in respect of which this question arose, was from June 22, 1974, to July 10, 1975. In the case of M/s. Keshrilal Lalchand the period of assessment was from April 1, 1971, to March 31, 1972. The provisions of section 11B of the Act, which are relevant for consideration in these cases read as under: "11B. Inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in section 11B of the Act were "during the time" and that the Board was not justified in holding that interest could be charged under those provisions only for completed months in default and not for shorter period constituting a month. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned counsel for the assessees that the Board of Revenue has consistently taken the view right from 1976 up-till now that interest under the aforesaid provision of section 11B of the Act could be charged only for completed months and that a period of less than a month should be ignored on the ground that the words "per month" were employed in section 11B of the Act. It may be pointed out that prior to the insertion of section 11B in the Act, provision relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w has been clearly specified from April 7, 1979, that interest was payable with effect from the date by which the dealer was required to pay the tax until the date of payment. However, as pointed out above, we are concerned with the period between May 2, 1969, and April 7, 1979, in which the unamended provision of section 11B of the Act was in force. Learned counsel for the Revenue sought support for his submission by referring to provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to imposition of penalty and the decisions bearing on such provisions. We may point out that the provisions relating to imposition of penalty contained in section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provide that penalty is payable in the circumstances mentioned there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyed by the legislature in section 11B of the Act is capable only of one interpretation that interest is imposable also on fractions of a month. To our mind it appears that the provisions contained in the unamended section 11B of the Act are ambiguous and can be interpreted in the manner in which the Board of Revenue has tried to interpret the same, although it is possible that we may decline to take a different view. We may refer to the decisions of the Board of Revenue which have been brought to our notice on the subject. In Premier Vegetable Products v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jaipur 1974 RRD 324, although the question of charging interest oil the outstanding amount of tax arose and interest was undoubtedly charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consideration while calculating the amount of interest payable by the assessee. The same view was also taken in Elec. Const. Equip. Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaipur 1983 RRD 621, Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur v. Pushpa Motors (P.) Ltd. 1984 RRD 478 and Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle-4, Jaipur v. Bala India Ltd. (1985) 5 TBR 150. Learned counsel appearing for the department pointed out that a Bench of the Board of Revenue in Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur v. Western Indian State Motors RRD 1981 NUC 37 did not agree with the decisions in Nagpal Bros. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur 1976 RRD 330 and Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jaipur v. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal III v. Balkrishna Malhotra [1971] 81 ITR 759 (SC). Their Lordships observed in the aforesaid case that in 1953 the High Court of Madras took a particular interpretation of the word "assessment" in proviso to section 34(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and no other High Court had taken a contrary view. In these circumstances, their Lordships observed that the Revenue must have acted in all these years on the basis of that decision of the High Court in the matter and such a view should not easily be departed from. It was also observed in that case that another view of the law may be possible, but law is not a mere mental exercise and that courts while reconsidering decisions rendered a long ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
