9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n liquor. Petitioner's premises was inspected on March 30, 1993 and it was found that the monthly tax which was required to be paid has not been deposited. Post dated cheques were collected from the petitioner. Assessment proceedings were concluded and a notice was issued to the petitioner in this regard. Thereafter, a penalty of Rs. 5,45,023 was levied on the petitioner. The same was challeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty and interest on tax relating to the assessment year up to 1996-97 by way of one-time relief. He, therefore, says that penalty also qualifies for relief in terms of the scheme. Learned counsel says that rejection in terms of annexure A is unsustainable in law. Per contra, learned Government Pleader would say that in terms of the scheme there is no outstanding by the petitioner and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in terms of the scheme. This question is no longer in dispute in view of the judgment of this court reported in A. J. Shetty Co (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2006] 143 STC 255; [2003] ILR Kar 4544. In the said judgment this court has ruled that the word outstanding has to be understood as an amount payable in terms of the sales tax laws. Penalty and interest are relatable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttedly petitioner has made over Rs. 2,50,000 in terms of the interim order granted by this court. On the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to retain the said amount till a final decision is taken in terms of this order. In the light of this order, annexure B, has to go and the same is set aside by this court. Ordered accordingly. No costs. Ms. Niloufer Akba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
