9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that local body tax was imposed. That is imposed by the local civic bodies in India on goods imported into a local area for consumption, use and sale therein. That tax has to be paid in accordance with the rules and regulations framed by the respective State Governments and it superseded the octroi and cess. In 2013, the first respondent imposed this tax in place of octroi and cess with effect from 1st April, 2013. It was imposed within the municipal limits of Pune as well. 3. The further grievance of the petitioner before us is that the representatives of the Corporation visited the premises and directed production of record. The petitioner pointed out that the demand of tax is also satisfied and demand drafts of 10th March, 2014 as part-payment were forwarded. Then, the records were also forwarded so as to satisfy the authorities about the recovery and payment of taxes. The shortfall was made good by making part payment of tax alongwith interest. Thus, the tax liability for the financial year in question 2013-14 was, according to the petitioner, satisfied in toto. 4. However, a notice of demand dated 2nd July, 2014 bearing the aforestated number was issued and in that, demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has previously been made and disposed of; (d) in the case of an appeal against any amendment made in the assessment book for property taxes during the official year, a complaint has been made by the person aggrieved within twenty one days after he first received notice of such amendment, and his complaint has been disposed of; (e) in the case of an appeal against a tax, or in the case of an appeal made against a rateable value or the capital value, as the case may be, the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeable on the basis of the disputed rateable value, upto the date of filing, the appeal has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner. (2A) Where the appeal is not filed in accordance with the provisions of clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (2), it shall be liable to be summarily dismissed. (3) In the case of any appeal entertained by the Judge, but not heard by him, before the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Judge shall not hear and decide such appeal, unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant, or the amount of the tax chargeabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner." 10. Section 406 provides for an appeal. The appeals against any rateable value or the capital value, as the case may be, or tax fixed or charged under this Act shall be heard and determined by the Judge. No such appeal shall be entertained unless it is brought in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 406. In the event the tax is the subject matter of challenge, then, the Section says in clearest terms that if the rateable value based on which the tax is demanded is the ground on which the assessee has proceeded, he must have filed a complaint to the Commissioner before approaching the appellate forum. That complaint has to be disposed of. In the case of an appeal against any tax, including interest and penalty imposed in respect of which the provision exists under this Act for a complaint to be made to the Commissioner against the demand, such complaint has previously been made and disposed of. In the case of an appeal against amendment made in the assessment book for property tax during the official year, a complaint has been made by the person aggrieved wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unicipal Corporation and these goods attracted local body tax. By a demand notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'D-1', the local body tax of Rs. 24,77,909/- is demanded. In addition, due to the non disclosure of goods liable to payment of local body tax, the petitioner is called upon to pay penalty equivalent to two times local body tax. The penalty amount is stated to be 48,75,767/-. The petitioner has been informed that its representative one Mr.Shikhare and Consultant Mr.Priyaranjan are aware of this liability to pay penalty. That is how the demand is stated to be sustained. 13. The petitioner replied on 4th July, 2014 that by demand drafts of Rs. 5,95,094/- and Rs. 4,89,972/- of 10th March, 2014, part payment of local body tax for the period of April 2013 to January 2014 is made. The local body tax is thus cleared and if there is any liability in relation thereto, remaining to be cleared, the petitioner pointed out by its letter of 4th July, 2014 that they are not liable to pay any penalty. Thus, the tax is paid in full and there was no justification for levy of penalty. It is stated that the petitioner has paid the amount of tax. 14. To our mind, this statement of the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
