9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment order – In light of said decision, interest chargeable from date of passing of assessment order and not from date of passing of assessment order in any other year by which assessing authority has taxed incidental charges for first time – Decided against Assesse. - V. A. T. A. P. Nos. 68, V. A. T. A. P. Nos. 69 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-3-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. ANITA CHAUDHRY JJ. Sandeep Goyal for the appellant. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, Assistant Advocate-General, Haryana, for the respondents. ORDER This order shall dispose of VATAppeal Nos. 68 and 69 of 2013 as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the issues involved therein are identical. For brevity, the facts are being taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal may be noticed. The appellant-corporation is engaged in the procurement of wheat, foodgrains, paddy and rice for the central pool either independently or in association with the State Governments and their agencies. The Assessing Officer vide order dated November 28, 1986 while framing the assessment for the year 1978-79 raised an additional demand of ₹ 1,65,62,436 on account of incidental charges like dami, dalali and mandi charges. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) (in short, the JETC (A) ) who vide order dated June 20, 1989 reduced the additional demand to ₹ 72,98,139. The assessee filed CWP No. 6855 of 1986 before this court. In pursuance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review application for deciding the issue of tax on incidental charges. The Tribunal vide order dated October 9, 2012 (annexure A7) decided the issue of tax on incidental charges against the assessee in view of the judgment of this court in Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab [2010] 30 VST 47 (P H); [2010] 35 PHT 40 (P H). Further, the Tribunal held that the inter est was leviable from the date of order by which the assessing authority or any other competent authority had taxed the incidental charges for the first time for any year. Hence, the present appeal. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that question (i) stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of assessee in Food Corporation of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which assessing authority has taxed the incidental charges for the first time for any assessment year. Again, it was not dis puted that the issue stands concluded by the judgment of the honourable apex court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC) wherein it has been held that the interest is payable by the dealer from the date of the passing of the assessment order. Accordingly, it is held that the interest would be chargeable from the date of the passing of the assessment order in question and not from the date of passing of assessment order in any other year by which assessing authority has taxed the incidental charges for the first time. In view of the above, the appeals stand disposed of in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
