9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even the law makers wanted to indicate that tax, interest and penalty are distinct. If the legislature intended to make tax, interest and penalty as a pre-condition they would have simply stated disputed demand and not disputed tax . In Chennai Network Infrastructure Limited [ 2017 (4) TMI 1152 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] the issue that arose before Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was for filing an appeal under Section 406 of the Act for challenging the penalty imposed under Section 267-A of the said Act, whether the appellant is required to pay the said penalty as a condition precedent for entertaining appeal. It was the contention of the appellant therein that penalty is not a tax and Section 406 requires, as a condition precedent for entertaining appeal, payment of disputed tax and since the penalty imposed was not a tax, no amount is required to be paid. This Court rejected the contention of the appellant after analysing the provisions of Sections 128-A, 129 and 267-A which dealt with property taxes - the Court came to a conclusion that an appellant has to pay penalty amount for entertaining the appeal. In the present case the issue does not relate to property tax under Sections 128 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the case may be, the Commissioner unless the amount of the disputed tax claimed from the appellant has been deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner. 4. In the instant case, the issue involved in the assessment order was whether Petitioner is liable to pay Local Body Tax (LBT). Respondents have passed an order levying LBT of Rs. 28,861,674/-, interest of Rs. 28,861,674/- for the period June 2015 to June 2017 and penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. Petitioners have deposited the LBT but have not deposited the interest and penalty amount while filing the appeal. It is the contention of Petitioner that on a true and proper construction of Section 406 (8) of the Act, for entertaining an appeal it is only the amount of disputed tax claimed from Petitioner which has to be deposited, whereas it is the contention of Respondents that for entertaining the appeal under the said section, Petitioner is required to deposit not only the disputed tax but also the interest and penalty. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration is : (i) Whether on true and proper construction Section 406 (8) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, the phrase disputed tax used in the said section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in cases also, under Sub Rule (3) (a) provides If a dealer or a person does not pay the LBT within the time then he shall, be liable to pay by way of simple interest in addition to the amount of local body tax, a sum equal to . Even in Sub Rule (4) of Rule 48 it says ..in addition to any local body tax payable . a sum by way of penalty equal to the amount of local body tax due . and in the case of second or .. a sum by way of penalty or not exceeding two times amount of local body tax due .. . 8. The said Rules also prescribes various Forms for the purpose of administration of the levy and collection of the said taxes. Form E-I is Return-cum-Challan Form of half-yearly return and Item Nos.9 and 10 therein prescribes total LBT payable and interest for delayed payment, respectively. Similarly, the bank challan for paying the tax requires LBT, interest and penalty to be specified separately. Form E-II is a Form of Annual Return and Part-VI of the said Form provides for claim for refund of LBT and even there the amount of refundable is to be classified between tax, interest and penalty separately. Form-J is a notice of demand which again requires the LBT and penalty and interest to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, whether the appellant is required to pay the said penalty as a condition precedent for entertaining appeal. It was the contention of the appellant therein that penalty is not a tax and Section 406 requires, as a condition precedent for entertaining appeal, payment of disputed tax and since the penalty imposed was not a tax, no amount is required to be paid. This Court rejected the contention of the appellant after analysing the provisions of Sections 128-A, 129 and 267-A which dealt with property taxes. The Court observed that Section 128-A and 129 provides for property taxes on structures which are legally erected, whereas Section 267-A provides for penalty on structures which are unauthorisedly erected and both are compulsory exactions. The Court observed that the statute meant to tax both properties (legal as well as illegal) and, therefore, amount of penalty imposed under Section 267-A although described as penalty is to be treated as tax. Therefore, the Court came to a conclusion that an appellant has to pay penalty amount for entertaining the appeal. Secondly, the Co-ordinate Bench also drew support from Section 406 (2) of the Act which provided that no appeal shall be ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
