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

2009 (1) TMI 801

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the designated authority and demand has to be made by the authority and such demand has not been made are all incorrect statements. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the writ petitions deserve no merit consideration. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. - W.P. Nos. 6946, 7076,7077,7078 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2009 - RAVIRAJA PANDIAN K. AND JANARTHANA RAJA P.P.S. , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN J. The writ petitions are filed by the assessee seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Designated Authority-cum-Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes), .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty rejected the application of the petitioner for samadhan on the premise that the dealer has failed to fulfil the conditions laid down under section 7(2) of the Samadhan Act, 2002, i.e., non-payment of interest. The correctness of the same is put in issue in these writ petitions. Mr. Soundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had filed an application as required under section 5 of the Act, along with the proof of payment of the amount payable at the rates specified under section 7 of the Act. The interest payable by the applicant on the amount determined under sub-section (1) of section 7 has not been intimated to the petitioner. Further, he contended that there is no time-limit prescr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m of the tax in dispute; or (b) Where it relates to any tax and penalty in dispute, at the rate of fifty per centum of the tax in dispute and at the rate of twenty-five per centum of such fifty per centum of the tax in dispute; (c) Where it relates to any penalty in dispute, at the rate of fifteen per centum of the penalty in dispute; (d) Where it relates to any interest in dispute, at the rate of twentyfive per centum of the interest in dispute; Section 7(2) provides that the interest payable by an applicant on the amount determined under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of section 7(1) shall be twenty-five per centum of the interest payable at the rate specified under the relevant Act and the same shall be paid before the issue o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he petitioner filed his application under section 4 of the 2002 Act on September 28, 2002 along with the proof of payment of the amount, as prescribed under section 7(1). The said amount was also paid on September 28, 2002. The said amount carries interest under section 7(2) of the 2002 Act read with section 24(3) of the TNGST Act from the date from which the amount so paid has become payable till the date of actual payment. The assessing officer, by his demand dated June 6, 2003, demanded interest for the belated payment of the amount. The designated authority, by his proceedings, dated September 4, 2003 has also informed the petitioner to pay the interest, but there was no compliance. Again, after the lapse of more than 30 days, another d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt within seven days from the notice. All the intimations and efforts taken by the designated authority to have the interest amount recovered from the petitioner went in vain. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the designated authority has scrupulously followed the statutory provision in passing the impugned order. Only after the rejection order it appears that the petitioner paid the interest on January 6, 2004. At the time of making the payment of interest on the aforesaid date, in the eye of law, there was no application pending before the designated authority as the application made by the petitioner has been rejected as early as December 15, 2003. All the contentions raised by the petitioner that the interest has to be .....

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