Pre-amendment sales tax interest and disputed penalty figures: interest barred for short delay, penalty remanded for fresh verification.

Before the 7 April 1979 amendment to section 11B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, interest could not be levied for a delay of less than one month, and that position was upheld. On penalty under section 5C(2), deletion based on disputed figures from an affidavit was improper because the assessing authority had not been given a reasonable opportunity to verify those figures. The penalty order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh proceedings de novo before the assessing authority. The revisions therefore succeeded only in part, with the interest ruling maintained and the penalty issue sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interest could be levied for delay of less than one month for the period prior to 7 April 1979 under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the penalty under section 5C(2) could be deleted without giving the assessing authority a reasonable opportunity to verify the disputed figures.

Issue (i): Whether interest could be levied for delay of less than one month for the period prior to 7 April 1979 under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The governing legal position was that, before the amendment of section 11B with effect from 7 April 1979, interest for delay of less than a month could not be charged. That principle had already been applied by the Court in the earlier decision relied upon in the judgment.

Conclusion: The deletion of interest for delay of less than one month prior to 7 April 1979 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty under section 5C(2) could be deleted without giving the assessing authority a reasonable opportunity to verify the disputed figures.

Analysis: The penalty had been set aside on the basis of figures contained in an affidavit filed before the Tribunal, but the assessing authority had disputed those figures. The Tribunal had not verified them and the dispute required fresh examination. In these circumstances, deleting the penalty without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessing authority was held improper.

Conclusion: The order deleting the penalty was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings de novo before the assessing authority.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only in part. The ruling on interest was left undisturbed, while the penalty issue was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where material facts affecting penalty are disputed and have not been verified, relief cannot be granted without giving the assessing authority a fair opportunity to examine them; pre-amendment interest for delay of less than one month cannot be levied under section 11B.

---