9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated June 14, 1995, passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, the Tax Tribunal ) in Appeal No. 516/93/Jaipur. This petition was earlier sub mitted before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and on its abolition, stood transferred to this court. This petition was admitted by this court on the following questions of law: (a) Whether the learned Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in deleting the interest under section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ? (b) Whether the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest liability can be calculated from the date the tax is deter mined or quantified and not from the date from which the tax became due ? The controversy, in brief, is that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not spelt out the basis for coming to such a finding. She submitted that nothing has been observed by the Tax Tribunal with regard to the liability of interest and only in the concluding part, in one line, it has been observed that the interest liability of the appellant shall commence on the day the tax was quantified and nothing more. The respondent-assessee wilfully did not disclose the sale of the above commodity as taxable and avoided clear legal tax liability and therefore, interest burden was part of the tax from day one. She accordingly prayed that the interest, being consequential, ought to have been levied from day one and not in the way the Tax Tribunal has directed. Mr. Alkesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty once for all. It is also noticed that the matter had earlier travelled up to the honourable apex court and, therefore, at one point of time finality should come in the tax matters. It has also been brought to the notice of this court that in the order dated July 6, 2007 (CTO, Jaipur v. Khandelwal Drug Agencies SB Sales Tax Revision Petition Nos. 359, 719 and 721 of 1999), passed in three revision petitions, this court had expected that the Tax Board would decide the controversy as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months, however, it is noticed that during the last more than six years, the aforesaid directions have not been complied and the matter is still pending before the Tax Board. Accordingly, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
