9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly from the date, the demand is raised and not from the date of filing of return - demand of interest set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in J. K. Synthetics Limited vs Commercial Taxes Officer (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 276, which was followed in Paul Motor Store vs State of Punjab (2007) 10 VST 259 (P&H), it was submitted that as the amount of tax demanded was paid within the time permitted, there was no question of charging of interest, as the amount of tax found to be due was required to be paid at that time. He further referred to an earlier order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal-I, Punjab, in M/s Fazilka Gas Service, Fazilka vs State of Punjab (2004) 24 PHT 265, where demand of interest under similar circumstances was set aside by the Tribunal but the decision was not followed in the case in hand. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Store's case (supra). In that case the tax as assessed initially at the time of assessment was paid, however, in re-assessment proceedings, additional tax was found to be due for which interest and penalty was levied. The demand of interest on that account was quashed by this Court while referring to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in J. K. Synthetics Limited's (supra), Frick India Limited vs State of Haryana (1994) 95 STC 188, Maruti Wire Industries Private Limited vs Sales Tax Officer (2001) 122 STC 410 and Full Bench judgment of this Court in United Riceland Limited vs State of Haryana (1997) 104 STC 362. It was on the premise that an assessee cannot foresee the additional demand of tax on account of reassessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
