9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requirement of the Haryana Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1985. However, they did not deposit the tax payable under the Act along with returns. Therefore, the assessing authority levied interest under the provisions of the Act. The plea of the petitioners for waiver of interest in terms of the policy contained in Haryana Government's letter dated September 22, 1989 was turned down by the assessing authority. They challenged the levy of interest by filing revision petitions which were dismissed by Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Karnal. C.W.P. No. 18243 of 2002 filed by them was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on November 16, 2002 with the direction that representations dated January 23, 2001 and January 25, 2001 made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertains to the year 1992-93 and 1993-94. The cases for these two years were not pending as on September 22, 1989, the date of issue of the letter which is being Purushotam Trading Co. v. State of Haryana (2003) 21 P H Taxes 57. relied upon by the representationists. It is relevant to observe that the instructions contained envisaged one time concession only about the assessment cases those were pending as on September 22, 1989 and the object was to liquidate the pendency of such cases by the first week of October, 1989. The representationists, therefore, has no right to claim similar concession for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. I have carefully considered the request of the representationist made in their representations, annexure P-3 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpetent authority for declining the petitioner's prayer for waiver of interest are legally unsustainable and, therefore, the impugned order should be quashed and a direction may be issued to the State to determine the issue afresh. He further argued that the policy contained in letter dated September 22, 1989 should be deemed to be applicable to the case of the petitioners because they were in no way responsible for non-payment of tax on due dates. 5.. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel, but have not felt persuaded to agree with him. A reading of annexure P1 shows that the policy for waiver of interest was framed by the Government with the sole object of curtailing the pending litigation. It was confined to the cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
