9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 30(4) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 2 Briefly, the facts leading to the present petition are as under: a) Petitioner No.1 is a company engaged in the business of buying and selling motor vehicles and spare parts at Pune. Petitioner No.2 is its Director. Respondent No. 1 is the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (VAT) exercising jurisdiction over Petitioner No. 1 under the Act. Respondent No.2 is the State of Maharashtra. b) Petitioner No.1 is registered as a dealer under the Act for the financial years 2005-06; 2006-07 and 2007-08. In the course of its business as a dealer under the Act, Petitioner No.1 is discharging its tax dues in accordance with its returns furnished to the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a sum equal to 25 per cent, of the additional tax payable as per the return or, as the case may be, revised return." e) On 8th July 2009 audit of the first petitioner's activities for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 under the Act was undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Consequent to the audit, a letter of intimation under Section 63(7) of the Act determining the additional tax payable for 2005-06 at Rs.14,23,240/-, for 2006-07 at Rs. 12,05,048/- and for 2007-08 at Rs.15,10,128/- aggregating to Rs. 41,38,416/- was sent to the Petitioner. f) On 20 August 2009 petitioner No.1 filed revised returns and also paid further tax under the Act for the three years viz. 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 aggregating to Rs.41,38,416 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) dismissed the three appeals as not maintainable under the Act. k) Consequent to the above, the Petitioners have filed the present petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside the three orders dated 23 September 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax imposing interest under Section 30(4) of the Act. 3) On the aforesaid facts, Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the Orders dated 23 September 2011 are unsustainable in law submitted as under: (a) this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction as there is no alternative remedy available to Petitioner No.1 from the orders dated 23 September 2011 in view of clear prohibition for appeal under Section 85 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber 2011 are in accordance with law and call for no interference. 5) We have considered the submissions. The only issue for consideration before this court is whether imposing/charging of interest under Section 30(4) of the Act in respect of the late payment of tax for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 is valid in law. It is an undisputed position that sub section (4) of Section 30 of the Act came into force with effect from 1 July 2009 providing for imposition of interest at a flat rate at 25 per cent of the additional tax payable as per the revised returns. In the present case, the audit of the petitioner's accounts under the Act for the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 took place on 8 July 2009. Intimation of short payment of tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Petitioner that Section 30(4) of the Act is being applied retrospectively in the present case because it deals with the short payment of tax in respect of the period 2006 to 2008 is not well founded for the reason that it is well settled that merely because a part of the requisites for an action is drawn from a time prior to its passing, that would not make the action retrospective. Therefore Section 30(4) of the Act was not being applied retrospectively. There was a non payment of additional taxes as on 1 July 2009 when Section 30(4) of the Act was introduced. 6) The submission of the Petitioner that reliance upon the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal in the matter of Nitco Paints (P) ltd. dated 12 July 2010 (44 MTJ 207) is mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vs. CTO 94 STC 422 (SC). However, no submissions with regard to the aforesaid decisions were made during the course of the hearing. In any event, both the aforesaid decisions would not apply to the present facts. In the matter of Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. (Supra) the issue was with regard to an amendment made in respect of filing an Appeal and in those facts, it was held that the amendment could not take away an accrued right of the party concerning the conditions for filing an Appeal. Similarly, in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd (Supra), the interest which was being demanded related to the delay in paying the Sales Tax. In the present case, the interest is being charged at a flat rate and has no relation to the length of time(dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
