9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 15,41,178/- on the petitioner invoking Section 23(3) of the KGST Act. It is the case of the petitioner that, owing to a dispute that was pending between the assessee and the Department on the issue of inclusion of rubber cess in the purchase turn over of rubber, the petitioner had not included the rubber cess in the purchase turn over that was disclosed in the return filed by the petitioner. While paying tax, however, the entire tax that was due as per the return filed was paid by the petitioner. Subsequently, taking note of the developments that took place pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court on the issue of inclusion of rubber cess in the purchase turn over, the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1996-1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the extent it levies penal interest on the petitioner under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act, must necessarily succeed. The assessment year in question is 1996-1997 and the provision that is invoked for the levy of penal interest is Section 23 (3) of the KGST Act. The Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sales Tax Officer v. Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. [(1999) 113 STC 19] was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, First Circle, Mattancherry and Others [(2001) 122 STC 410] wherein the Supreme Court found that the liability of a dealer under the KGST Act to pay sales tax can arise either by way of self assessment on the return of turnover being filed or else ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od. This being the case, the levy of interest on Section 23 (3A) would not apply in respect of a demand of tax pertaining to assessment year 1996-1997. On this issue, for the earlier assessment year namely, 1995-1996, a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 13.02.2009 in W.A.No.2115 of 2007, held in the petitioner's own case, that the provisions of Section 23 (3A), which was subsequently renumbered as Section 23 (3B), would have no application in a situation where at the time of filing the return, the return was correct as per law. Thus, Ext.P1 assessment order, to the extent it demands penal interest under Section 23(3) of the KGST Act on the petitioner, cannot be legally sustained. I quash Ext.P1 assessment order to the exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
