9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 628X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for purchase turnover under section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 of raw cashewnut was negatived by the assessing officer following the judgment in State of Travancore-Cochin v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew-nut Factory [1953] 4 STC 205 (SC) holding raw cashewnut and cashew kernel exported are different commodities. This was upheld in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner in his order dated July 17, 1989 following the decision in State of Kerala v. Sankaran Nair [1986] 63 STC 225 (Ker) and further finding that there is no evidence of anterior contract. On second appeal before the Tribunal in T.A. No. 780 of 1989 dated October 16, 1989, there was no representation for the appellant. The Tribunal found that the matter was covered by Sankaran N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether is this not an attempt to avoid the payment of tax? And should not the revenue get interest for the delayed payment of tax? O.P. No. 1591 of 1996: 2A. In this case, an assessment order for the year 1986-87 was completed on February 27, 1990 which was subsequently modified by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal dated February 7, 1991. This was confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the Tribunal stayed the collection for the period from March 23, 1991 onwards. The interest had been re-computed for the period of stay up to November 1, 1995. O.P. No. 17859 of 1995: 3.. As against the assessment order for the year 1988-89, petitioner preferred an appeal which modified the assessment order. Petitioner p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the dealers may not evade or delay the payment of tax. Their Lordships rejected the argument for a separate notice. The liability to pay interest arises by operation of law. The amount of interest on the date of payment is not constant but increases from day to day. Hence it will not be possible to specify the amount in a certificate. It is a matter of arithmetical calculation. No elaborate procedure is required for that. 6.. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 has held that it is well-settled that in fiscal enactments the Legislature has a larger discretion in the matter of classification. 7.. In Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1987] 65 STC 416, the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained in the meanwhile. As a matter of fact, after T.R.C. in this case, the petitioner in O.P. No. 3500 of 1999 obtained stay stating that he needs time to move S.L.P. but subsequently got the O.P. withdrawn and dismissed. The intervening period is July 30, 1993 to June 12, 1997. The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of moving and exercise of jurisdiction of article 226 of the Constitution of India only for getting interim orders in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330; [1985] 58 Comp Cas 145 (SC) and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC); AIR 1983 SC 603. 11.. If this period is stopped from running, it will be against public policy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(g) is without basis and substance. In Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1997] 106 STC 433; AIR 1997 SC 2920, the Supreme Court held that there is liability to pay interest during which recovery amount was stayed by orders of High Court. Their Lordships observation would apply to the circumstances of this case which is as follows: 16. The tax amount which they should have paid as per section 6B remained with the appellant during the entire period and they would have earned good profit with that amount. The State, to which the tax amount should necessarily have gone, was not able to utilize it for public purposes. When appellants had the advantage of keeping the amount of tax without paying it to the State exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of the Supreme Court in Khyerbari Tea Co. v. State of Assam AIR 1964 SC 925. 15.. Here, section 23(3) is not under challenge. We are concerned only with the period during which interest can be claimed. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) have to be read together to avoid any possibility of difficulties to the assessee. If so read together, I find no unreasonableness in sub-section (3A). The impugned provision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. For all these reasons, there are no sustainable grounds to quash the impugned provision. Hence the original petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 5956 of 1999 in O.P. No. 3500 of 1999N dismissed. petitions dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - CST, VAT & Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
