9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 24. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 deals with an assessed tax or tax which has become payable under the Act. In case covered by Section 13(2) tax must be paid without any notice of demand. But as stated above, under Section 13(2) tax is to be paid "on the basis of such returns". Tax as per the returns has admittedly been paid. If the returns were incomplete or incorrect as now claimed the assessing authority had to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3) - demand of interest without jurisdiction - writ petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.No.20418 of 2005 & W.P.M.P.No.22286 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tingency contemplated under sub-section 3 of Section 24 does not arise for consideration in this case. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been assessed to tax and the impugned demand itself is based upon the dishonour of the cheques collected from the petitioner. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader based on the written instructions given by the Assessing Officer contended that the petitioner voluntarily paid the amount, by accepting the liability and in this regard, the statement recorded by the Enforcement Wing Officials from the petitioner was relied on. 6. In my view, the question of relying upon the petitioner's own statement recorded by the Enforcement Wing Officials cannot be taken as the basis to levy interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.08.2016. In the said case, as contended herein, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Section 13 of the TNGST Act, and stated that, once returns are accepted, then, there is no question of assessment to be made, and the dues can be claimed. This Court, after taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., (supra), allowed the Writ Petition. In the said case also, there was differential tax amount, payable by the petitioner on account of the dispute raised before this Court as regards the rate of tax. The petitioner therein filed returns and remitted the tax at 4%, as, at the relevant point of time, they enjoyed the interim order passed in the Writ Petition. Ultimately, the Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0%, the petitioner paid the differential tax of 6% immediately after the order was passed in 1997. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 13 would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. Thus applying the legal principles as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EID Parry, it is held that the demand for interest is not tenable. 9. In the light of the above discussion and applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EID Parry (India) Ltd. (referred to supra), it has to be held that the impugned demand for interest is without jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
