9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability for the assessment year 1986-87 (provincial) was created by the assessing officer. Being dissatisfied with the assessment order, the matter was carried in appeal and further appeal and ultimately to this court in STR No. 1253 of 1991. The said STR was dismissed by the judgment dated August 22, 2003(1). On account of failure of the petitioner in the proceedings, referred to above, the Department sought to recover the disputed balance amount towards trade tax liability as also the interest accrued thereon. Disputing its liability to pay the interest on the outstanding trade tax liability, the present writ petition has been filed on the allegations that the petitioner had already deposited full amount of disputed tax on June 27, 2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the controversy in the present writ petition stands concluded between the parties by the judgment given in STR Nos. 1253 and 1254 of 1991 decided on August 22, 2003(1). The present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner should have filed special leave petition before the apex court against the judgment delivered in STR Nos. 1253 and 1254 of 1991 whereby the revisions filed by the petitioner were dismissed. There is no bona fide dispute between the parties. The recovery certificate has been issued after the decision rendered in STR No. 1253 of 1991 for the interest amount of Rs. 2,61,912. The Government order No. 1503 dated March 22, 2003 is applicable to only those dealers who have deposited the principal amount or part there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 1986-87 (U.P.). Whether the petitioner is liable to pay interest or not, should have been challenged in the proceedings which had arisen out of the assessment order up to this court in STR No. 1253 of 1991(1). The said plea could have been and ought to have been raised in those proceedings. Having been unsuccessful therein, the filing of the present petition disputing the liability to pay the interest against the demand notice is wholly misconceived one and it amounts to abuse of process of the court. No satisfactory reply was given as to why the said point was not urged before this court or before any of the authorities, below to the High Court, giving rise to STR Nos. 1253 and 1254 of 1991. The payment of interest on unpaid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion Bench of this court in the case of Annapurna Biscuits Manufacturing Co. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1982] 50 STC 56; [1980] UPTC 1320 has held that non-furnishing of declaration form to entitle a dealer to claim exemption from or payment of lower rate of tax, amounts the admitted tax liability and the interest is, therefore, chargeable. Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 is the authority for the proposition that if a revision has been (1)Reported as Devidayal Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2006] 143 STC 199 (All) dismissed by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, a fresh petition under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Having invoked revisional jurisdiction of this court, it would not be sound exercise of discretion to entertain the present petition or grant any relief to the petitioner in view of the principle of law, as discussed above. Besides the above, by means of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of notice of demand of interest. It has not sought quashing of any order. Presumably, the petitioner was conscious that the order which had attained finality could not be challenged in the writ petition. A writ petition against a notice of demand is not entertainable for the reason that a demand notice is consequential to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o own showing of the petitioner, it was not in arrears of tax on March 31, 2000. The petitioner had deposited the outstanding dues between December 24, 1991 to June 27, 2000 as per its application, copy whereof has been filed as annexure 5 to the writ petition. To put it differently, on the date of commencement of the said G.O., the petitioner was not in tax arrears and, therefore, the view taken by the respondents that the said G.O. is not applicable to the petitioner is perfectly justified and calls for no interference. No other point was pressed. No doubt, the present writ petition has been resorted to as a "buyingtime" tactic. More realistic approach relating to costs may be the need of the hour. The petitioner has obtained a conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
