Court Upholds Statutory Interest for Tax Delay; Emphasizes Adherence to Procedures

The court upheld the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's orders levying statutory interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for belated payment of additional tax. The petitioners' challenges regarding the calculation and payment of penal interest for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 were rejected. Emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures, the court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the petitioners to utilize statutory remedies like appeals and revisions for dispute resolution.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to correctness of orders levying statutory interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for belated payment of additional tax.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's orders levying statutory interest under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for belated payment of additional tax. The penal interest was calculated for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, with detailed breakdowns provided in tabular form. The petitioners contended that they paid the additional tax without delay, citing reasons such as the inability to estimate turnover in advance and depending on various factors like government policies and competition. However, the assessing officer determined that the additional sales tax should have been paid when the taxable turnover exceeded Rs. 10 crores, rejecting the objections and confirming the levy of penal interest.

The statutory provision under section 24(3) of the Act mandated interest payment at two percent per month on any amount remaining unpaid after the specified date, with exceptions for small amounts and pending appeals or revisions. The court emphasized the petitioner's duty to pay additional sales tax promptly as per the rules, noting discrepancies in the payment details provided. It suggested that if the petitioner believed the payments were made on time, they should present all relevant materials to the revisional authority for reconciliation.

The judgment highlighted the importance of utilizing statutory remedies like appeals and revisions against assessment orders instead of seeking interference from the court in the assessment process. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it stressed that the Assistant Collector had the authority to conduct assessments as deemed appropriate, including making necessary inquiries. The court dismissed the writ petitions, emphasizing the revisional authority's role in resolving disputes and directing the petitioners to follow the proper channels for addressing their concerns.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions and associated miscellaneous petitions, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory procedures and the role of the revisional authority in resolving assessment disputes.

---