9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No.19108 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - The Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai Additional Government Pleader ORDER Heard Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learnred Additional Government Pleader, appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer, on the file of the second respondent, under the provisions of erstwhile Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter, referred to as, 'TNGST Act') has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order passed by the first respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 03.08.2016. In the said case, as contended herein, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Section 13 of the TNGST Act, and submitted 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 payment of tax. The petitioner therein filed returns and remitted the tax at 4%, as, at the relevant point of time, they enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, which was granted based on the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x @ 10% only on 27.10.1997 i.e., after about seven years after the relevant period, viz., August and September 1991. After the Assessment Authority held that tax is liable to be paid @ 10%, 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 India Ltd.,, it is held that the demand for interest is not tenable. 6. Thus, in the light of above orders, the Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings, levying interest under Section 24 (3) of the Act are quashed. No costs. Consequently, connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
