9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of admission in accordance with the rules of the court. The petitioner seeks mandamus for direction to respondent nos. 3 and 4 not to realise the amount of interest charged on the petitioner vide recovery certificate dated 19-11-1988 for the assessment year 1981-82 and ₹ 10,572.30 for the assessment year 1984-85. 2. The petitioner is adealer registered under Sections 8-A of the U. P. Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the department, hence the interest had been included. The aforesaid assessment order for the year 1981-82 was served on the petitioner on 19-3-86. According to the case of the respondents, the petitioner did not produce bank certificate and thereafter submitted a bank draft for the aforesaid sum on 17/23-4-1986. It is in this light the respondent-authority demanded the interest which is su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the admitted cheque on the date on which the said cheque was received by the Sales Tax Officer as aforesaid. It is not in dispute as aforesaid, the said cheque for the aforesaid amount was tendered by the petitioner within time on 2-2-1982 and in case the said cheque had been dishonoured or returned, interest would have been charged from the petitioner. According to the petitioner till 1986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in case the said cheque is sent to the bank for encashment to intimate its result to the dealer concerned in case it is not encashed. We find in the present case the averment is missing right from the date the said cheque was tendered till the assessment order was passed and in view of this fact we find the charging of interest in the recovery certificate is not correct. Similar position is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
