9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr.Naveen Durai Babu For the Respondents : Mr. M. Hariharan ORDER Heard Naveen Durai Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.M.Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are registered dealers, on the file of the second respondent, have challenged the orders passed by the revisional authority, viz., Joint Commissioner (CT) (RP). 3. By the impugned proceedings, levy of penalty has been confirmed. Identical issue came up for consideration before this court in the case of General Industrial Leathers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai v.the Joint Commissioner (CT) (RP), Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the manner of taxation on REP was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 01.05.1996. 4. Thus, the question would be as to whether interest is liable to be demanded under Section 24 (3) of the TNGST Act. The issue is answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in favour of the assessee/dealer, in the case of (E.I.D. Parry (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in (2005) 4 RC 767. 5. In fact, I had an occasion to consider somewhat an identical issue in the case of (Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others), in W.P.No.5929 of 2005, dated 03.08.2016. In the said case, as contended herein, the learned Additional Government Pleader refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that provisional assessment was made and the notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the differential rate of tax was only on the ground that the petitioner did not remit 10% tax but remitted only 4% tax. But the petitioner did not admit the return. Therefore, if it is a case where the petitioner admitted the return, the tax liability became crystallized and the petitioner does not pay the amount, then the Assessing Officer would be entitled to issue notice and upon violation to pay the amount, interest would be attracted. In the instant case, the petitioner did not admit his return and assessment was completed and he was assessed to tax @ 10% only on 27.10.1997 i.e., after about seven years after the relevant period, viz., August a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
