9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will it be enough, if the tax portion alone is satisfied, so as to maintain the appeal under Section 39 of the KGST Act. 2. The petitioner was the Managing Partner of a firm, which was being run under the name and style as M/s. Best Traders, Kalpetta. The said firm was closed down because of the adverse circumstances in the year 2005. In respect of the assessment year 2004-05, the assessment proceedings came to be finalised by resorting to the course and procedure under Section 17D of the KGST Act, leading to Ext.P1 assessment order, fixing the tax liability as Rs. 2,55,111/- and showing the interest due as Rs. 1,53,067/-. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 demand notice, directing to deposit a sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the intent to attain finality to the entire proceedings, that the proceedings are pursued and finalised under Section 17D by a Team consisting of four members. If the said proceedings finalised by the Team constituted under Section 17D, were to be challenged, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the entire amount due in respect of the assessment year and as such, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with for having issued Ext.P6. It is also stated that the revenue authorities may not be in a position to say/ascertain as to what is the actual amount due in respect of the relevant period, which can be specified only by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. 6. For better appreciation of the provision of law, it is worthwhile to extract the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return was due though neither a return was furnished nor any tax paid on self assssment basis, is the question arising for decision in this appeal. Paragraph 7: "7. The same issue which was dealt with by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Associated Cement Co.Ltd. came up for the consideration of Constitution Bench in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (supra). This Court overruled the majority opinion and approving the minority opinion in Associated Cement Co's case held that the provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions is a substantive law, not adjectival law, and interest cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
