9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ides that the interest would be payable from the date the tax became due but was not paid. Thus, it is clear that the impugned demand levying interest on delayed payment is valid. As the appellants had given incorrect information with regard to total number of connections given by them & requisite information was not provided in spite of issuance of notices and requests made to the petitioner before imposition of penalty but in spite of grant of sufficient opportunities, the petitioner did not give correct information - willful mis-statements and suppression of facts thus the imposition of penalty is not in violation of the principles of natural justice. - Writ Petition No. 134 (M/B) of 2011 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2013 - Rajiv Sharma And Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), JJ. ORDER Heard Sri Gopesh Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Raibareli, whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs.39,400 towards delayed payment of entertainment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner was permitted. Accordingly, petitioner deposited entertainment tax as Rs.18,000 on the same day, Rs.20,000/- on 30.3.2009, Rs.30,000/- on 6.7.2009, Rs.4500 on 13.7.2009 and Rs.8,100 on 24.8.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner has cleared entire dues in the month of August, 2009 but even then, the impugned order has been passed. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of impugned order dated 23.9.2010, which was served on the petitioner on 31.12.2010, no notice of demand of interest was ever served upon the petitioner. Per contra, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that after passing of order dated 30.1.2009 by the appellate authority, on the basis of self-assessment for the period w.e.f. May, 2006 to August, 2008, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.80,600.00 through different challans. However, the petitioner has failed to deposit the interest on the defaulted amount of entertainment tax amounting to Rs.39,400.00 as required under Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Cable Television Network (Exhibition) Rules, 1997 [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules 1997"]. Elaborating his sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e within one week from the last day of every month, failing which simple interest at the rate of 2% per month shall become due and be payable on the upaid amount with effect from immediately following the last date prescribed till the date of payment of such amount. It would be also proper to notice that if the tax due according to the return or the tax assessed under the Rules or any instalment thereof, is not paid, within the time specified, the proprietor shall pay by way of interest in addition to the amount of such entertainment tax, additional tax and show tax at the rate of two rupees for every hundred rupees or part thereof such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment. In the instant case, the petitioner has not paid the entertainment tax as per Section 11 of the Rules 1997. Rule 16 of Rules 1997 provides that : "16. Notice for recovery of tax :- Where any sum due on account of tax under these rules has not been paid within the specified period by a Proprietor of a Cable Television, who is liable to make the payment, the District Magistrate shall, before issuing an order for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty or making demand to pay interest itself was not upheld. In Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P) Ltd. Vs. Excise Commissioner, U.P. Ors. reported in 1971 SCR (2) 590, the Apex Court has laid down the principle of interpretation of a taxing provision as follows : "In interpreting a taxing provision, the courts should not ordinarily concern themselves with the policy behind the provision or even with its impact. In a taxing statute one has to look at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used." If we read Rule 11 of the Rules 1997 in the light of the principles noted above, it becomes evident that the interest can be levied at the rate specified therein from the date the instalment became due but was not paid accordingly. From the above discussion it follow that unless there is specific authority to pass retrospective legislation, the subordinate legislation cannot be given effect to retrospectively. The subordinate legislation could be said to have retrospective effect, in the absence of spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
