Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (7) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rs. 21,18,846.32, at the assessment stage. Subsequently, certain forms were filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the benefit of those forms were extended to it. It is an admitted fact that the dealer-opposite party could not file the requisite number of form C as stated in the returns. Resultantly for certain sales in respect of which the dealer-opposite party initially claimed concessional rate of tax, could not produce form C, consequently tax at the rate of 10 per cent was ultimately levied by the first appellate authority. The dealer-opposite party filed second appeal before the Tribunal and disputed its liability to pay interest on Central sales in respect of which it could not file form C. The Tribunal by the order under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le interest at the rate of two per cent per mensem and pay the amount with effect from the date immediately following the last date prescribed till the date of payment of such amount under sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act. The Explanation attached to section 8(1) of the Act defines the expression tax admittedly payable . It means the tax which is payable under the Act on the turnover of sales or, as the case may be, the turnover of purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts maintained by the dealer, or admitted by him in any return or proceedings under the Act, whichever is later. Under the Act certain forms have been prescribed to claim certain benefits including concessional rate of tax or nil rate of tax. The conce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... able to be nil under section 8(1). Therefore its failure to file form could result in the enhancement of 'tax in excess' but the assessing authority could not while assessing tax create any demand for interest. Reliance was placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Vinus Auto Traders [1980] UPTC 273. None of the submissions has any merit on it. We have already indicated above that liability to pay interest under sub-section (1) of section 8 is not affected by deposit of tax assessed within the time specified. The only question, therefore, is whether the calculation of tax payable was in accordance with the Act. It is not disputed that if the petitioner effected sales to a person other than a registered dealer then it was liable to pay .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . This court has considered section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 along with section 8 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, as amended by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1975 and has held that where a dealer is seeking exemption from levy of tax upon some part of the turnover, unless he fulfils the statutory requirement for such a claim he shall have to pay interest upon the unpaid amount of tax calculated on the turnover worked out without regard to claim of exemption. In this case the High Court disapproved the view of the Tribunal that interest for non-filing of form C on the unpaid amount would be payable from the date of assessment. The reason is that in sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act, the starting point for the liability for payment of int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bsence of substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest, resort to State Sales Tax Act cannot be had. Subsequently, the Parliament amended the Central Sales Tax Act by Act No. 10 of 2000 and inserted section 9(2B). Section 120 of Amending Act 10 of 2000 contains validation clause. The validity of the aforesaid amendment was challenged in the case of Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2003] 38 STR 588 on the ground that the insertion of sub-section (2B) in section 9 on May 12, 2000 is prospective and is not retrospective. This court has upheld the validity of the aforesaid Amending Act and has held that the liability to pay outstanding interest is there and shall always be there on the unpaid Central sales tax. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates