9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the petitioner was importing "electrical equipments" and that the petitioner was not liable to pay any tax as it was not a "machinery". This fact, that the petitioner has disputed its liability under the Act is not disputed by the respondents. The fixation of the liability under the Act of 2007 in the assessment orders are being contested by the petitioner in the appeal. We are consequently of the opinion that since the petitioner has disputed its liability from the very inception, the same cannot be treated to be the admitted tax for the purpose of Section 8(1) of the Act read with Section 33(2) of the U.P.VAT Act. Thus, for the purpose of imposition of interest, the provisions of Section 8(1B)of the U.P.Act read with Section 33(4) of the U.P. VAT Act would be applicable for the purpose of determining the interest liability. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 777 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, JJ. ORDER ( Per Tarun Agarwala, J. ) 1. The background leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner is a licensee under provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that it has deposited a sum of ₹ 18 Crores and odd and submitted bank guarantee of ₹ 22 Crores and odd in pursuance to the earlier assessment order. 5. During the pendency of the appeal the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Tax, Khand 10, Meerut, respondent No.3, issued a notice dated 4.7.2015 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of ₹ 26,93,90,392/- towards interest. The petitioner moved a representation before the Deputy Commissioner praying that the details of computation of interest be provided. This representation remained pending and, on the other hand, the respondents proceeded to attach the bank account of the petitioner. This action of the respondent led the petitioner to file Writ Tax No.631 of 2015, which was disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) to decide the petitioner's representation within four weeks and provide the calculation, on the basis of which the amount of interest had been calculated. The Court directed that till the disposal of the petitioner's representation no attachment for recovery, as per the impugned notice dated 4.7.2015, would tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006-2007 10-02-2015 195000000-00 97500000-00 97500000-00 196032354-00 Total 403000000-00 204854608-00 198145392-00 494943796-00 9. From the aforesaid chart, interest now demanded is ₹ 49,49,43,796.00. The short controversy, which is involved in the present writ petition is, as to what would be the amount of interest payable by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the interest payable, if any, has to be determined under the provisions of Section 8(1B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 read with Section 33(4) of the U.P. VAT Act. According to the Department interest has to be determined under Section 8(1) of the Tax Act read with Section 33(2) of the U.P. VAT Act. For facility, the provision of Section 8(1) and 8(1B) of the Act read with Section 33(1), 33(2) and 33(4) of the U.P.VAT Act are extracted hereunder: Section 8(1) and 8(1-B) of the U.P.Trade Tax Act: 8. Payment and recovery of tax. - (1) The tax admittedly payable shall be deposited wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admittedly payable to which sub-section (2) applies} assessed, re-assessed or enhanced by any authority or court remains unpaid after expiration of the period specified in the notice of assessment and demand, simple interest at the rate of percent per mensum on the unpaid amount calculated from the date of such expiration shall become due and be payable: 10. In Pepsico India Holdings Limited. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow, U.P., 2011(40)VST 220 (SC), a question arose as to when interest on tax becomes payable. The Supreme Court after considering the provision of Section 8(1) and 8(1B) of the Act held, that once it is confirmed that the tax is payable under the Act, the same becomes payable from the date when it became due and not from the date when the judicial verdict was pronounced. The Supreme Court, held that once it is confirmed by the Court that the tax is payable under the Act, it would be covered within the definition of the term tax admittedly payable as defined in the explanation to Section 8(1) of the Act and, in case, the tax has not been paid, then the same becomes payable along with interest as mentioned in Section 8(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
