9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1956 (in short CST Act ) and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short TNGST Act ) is before this Court challenging the notices issued by the first respondent dated 31.03.2017, directing the petitioner to pay penal interest for having defaulted in payment of deferral amount granted under the Interest Free Sales Tax Loan ( in short IFST ) deferral agreement. 3. The only question, which falls for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the first respondent was justified in demanding interest from the due date for re-payment of the loan or the petitioner is liable to pay interest only from the date of the returns. The petitioner s case rests upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of default in the repayment of IFST deferral loan, the loan can be recoverable along with interest at 24% per annum calculated from the due date for repayment of loan and not from the date on which the IFST deferral loan was availed. The appellant therein, relied upon a decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P.Nos.65 to 68 of 1998. The Hon'ble Division Bench noted that the decision of the Special Tribunal has been accepted by the Commercial Taxes Department, as the learned Special Government Pleader, who was appearing on behalf of the respondent in those appeals did not dispute the said legal position. However, it was contended on behalf of the respondent therein that the appellant/petitioner had stopped the productio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of terms of condition of agreement. While so, a show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner proposing to reject the application filed by the petitioner therein under the Samadhan Scheme. While submitting the application under the Samadhan Scheme, the petitioner therein calculated and paid interest from 16.06.2003. The Joint Commissioner did not agree with the calculation done by the petitioner and demanded interest from the date of filing of the monthly return for the year 1995-96. The petitioner therein filed a reply to the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner stating that they are liable to pay interest only after the period of the payment of tax. 9. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision in the case of Amutha Mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos.65 to 68 of 1998. The decision of the Special Tribunal has been accepted by the Commercial Taxes Department. This position is not disputed by the learned Special Government Pleader but he submitted that since the appellant/petitioner stopped the production in 2002, they are liable to pay the penal interest from November, 2002 in terms of circular of the Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department dated 18.03.1994. However, a perusal of the said circular shows that this was only in the form of recommendation and this terms has not been specifically incorporated in the agreement. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant/petitioner shall be liable to pay penal interest only with effect from June, 2003. This writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
