9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For Respondents : Mr.R.Karthikeyan Additional Govt. Pleader ORDER Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner firm to call for the records of first respondent dated 07.07.2014 for the various assessment years and quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to accept the application made by the petitioner firm in Form I dated 30.04.2012. 3. Since the facts pleaded in all the Writ Petitions are similar in nature, for the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in W.P.(MD).No.12837 of 2015, is taken into consideration:- 3.1. It is averred in the affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Commercial Taxes in L.No.Drafting Committee No.1/28518/2012 dated 28.02.2014 while stating that if an assessee was enjoying the Deferral Scheme and there was a violation of the agreement during the Deferral Scheme, the interest had to be calculated from the date of filing the monthly returns. The first respondent stated that the petitioner had wrongly calculated the penal interest by treating 16.12.2003 as the base and not from the date of filing the monthly return for the year 1995-1996. Further, the first respondent has stated that as per Section 6(3) of the Tamil Nadu Settlement of Arrears Act 29/2011, the applicant should have paid 90% of the arrears of tax and if not, the application could not be accepted. 3.3. As the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the correct date of calculating interest as the date on which the Certificate was cancelled nor accepted the binding decisions of this Court in Amutha Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner (CT) in W.A.1482 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006 and in Sree Kalpatharu Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT) Coimbatore made in W.P.(MD).No.19060 of 2009, dated 01.12.2010. Eventually, the first respondent stated that the petitioner's agreement was not cancelled during the repayment of tax and the same was cancelled before that period and therefore, interest has to be paid from the date of filing the monthly returns. Accordingly, the petitioner's Samadhan application was rejected by the second respondent vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue does not arise here. Since the issue on hand is of revenue in nature, every effort shall be made to protect the revenue of the Government. To sum up, the petitioner firm is liable to pay interest from the date of returns only and not from the date of cancellation and prayed for the dismissal of these Writ Petitions. 6. In order to give quietus to this matter, it is more relevant to extract the order of the First Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1482 of 2006 dated 06.12.2006. ....2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that as per the terms of the deferral agreement, in the event of default in the repayment of the IFST deferral loan, the loan can be recoverable along with the interest at 24% per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
