9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d September 25, 2004 through the petition shall remain stayed. It is also equally settled that if the petition is being dismissed, the petitioner should restore back the advantages which it had obtained under the interim order. It is, therefore, provided that the petitioner will be liable to pay interest by way of additional sum over and above the amount which may be payable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act at the rate of six per cent simple interest per annum on the balance amount for the period from September 13, 2004 (the day on which the stay order was obtained) to the date of actual payment. W.P. dismissed. - Writ Tax No. 1217 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2010 - PRAKASH KRISHNA AND SUBHASH CHANDRA NIGAM , JJ. The judgment of the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and Annapurna Biscuits Manufacturing Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1982] 50 STC 56 (All); [1980] UPTC 1320. Besides the above, it has been further stated that in view of the Government Order dated March 22, 2003, filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition, the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest as it has deposited the principal amount of tax before March 31, 2002 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of waiver of interest and penalty under the said G.O. (1)Reported as Devidayal Aluminium Pvt. Lvt. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2006] 143 STC 199(All) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents disputing the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the liability to pay the interest is statu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the contents of the writ petition have been reiterated. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest; firstly, because it raised bona fide dispute regarding classification of the goods in question. Reliance was placed on a decision of the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation [2002] 127 STC 258; [1999] 14 NTN 197. Secondly, in view of the G.O. dated March 22, 2003, the petitioner having deposited the disputed amount even before issuance of the said G.O., the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainable as the order demanding interest has already attained finality so far as this court is concerned in STR Nos. 1253 and 1254 of 1991. No writ or direction can be issued in the subsequent proceedings by means of a fresh writ petition. Even otherwise also on merits, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. The decision given by the apex court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation [2002] 127 STC 258; [1999] 14 NTN 197 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case due to lack of necessary pleadings and material in the present case. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to it, has not cared to annex the copies of assessment order, order of first appellate authority or that of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the statute; basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider, and larger sense. It has been further held that even on the assumption that the order of the appellate court had not merged in the order which disposed of the revision petition, a writ petition ought not to be entertained, by the High Court when the petitioner had already chosen the remedy under section 115 of the Code of Civil Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the G.O. dated March 22, 2003, the petitioner is entitled for waiver of the interest amount. In the case on hand, it may be noticed that the petitioner did not deposit the trade tax in pursuance of the said G.O. On the contrary in para 13 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner had deposited the disputed amount of tax much before cut-off date as provided in the said G.O. On a plain reading of the G.O. dated March 22, 2003, it would show that the said G.O. is applicable only in respect of the dispute on the outstanding tax liability during the period January 1, 2004 to February 28, 2004. The very opening clause of the said G.O. provides that it shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
