9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 675X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter was remitted to the Assessing Authority for deciding afresh. The terms of remittance were not to the liking of the petitioner and that an appeal was filed before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, which was decided vide order dated September 9, 1986 and that the terms of remittance order were further modified accordingly. Thereafter, the assessment was framed and resultantly, the demand was reduced to Rs. 1,09,000 vide order dated May 20, 1989. This order was again challenged before the Appellate Authority and that the appeal was allowed vide order dated January 28, 1992 and that the contention of the assessee was accepted in toto. Resultantly, no demand remained to be recovered or become recoverable against the assessee. It has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mple interest on the amount of tax remaining unpaid at one per cent per month from the date commencing with the date following the last date for the payment of tax, for a period of one month and at one and a half per cent per month thereafter during the period he continues to make default in the payment: Provided that where the amount of tax not paid as required under sub-section (2A) or sub-section (3) does not exceed five hundred rupees, the interest payable thereon shall not exceed the amount of tax not so paid: Provided further that for the purposes of calculation of interest, a period of fifteen days or more shall be deemed to be one month and the amount of fifty rupees or more but less than one hundred rupees shall be deemed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suant to the unamended Rules and that the order was passed within the aforestated period vide which the application had been rejected. The amount of Rs. 54,000 had been refunded vide order dated May 20, 1989 when the fresh assessment was made by the Assessing Authority vide which the demand of Rs. 1,09,000 had been raised against the assessee. It is not understandable as to how the amount had been withheld with effect from December 24, 1986 up to May 20, 1989, especially when there was no demand pending against the assessee. No doubt, the assessment proceedings were pending but there is no provision under which the amount could be withheld by the revenue as no demand was recoverable against the assessee. Thus, in view of rule 35, beyond the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
