Final tax assessment cannot be reopened through a writ challenge to consequential interest demand; waiver scheme conditions must be strictly met.

A writ petition under Article 226 could not reopen an interest demand consequential to a tax assessment that had already attained finality through statutory revision, and the court treated the challenge as an abuse of process. The liability to pay interest on unpaid trade tax was a statutory liability linked to the concluded assessment proceedings, so the demand notice was not independently assailable. The petitioner also failed to show eligibility for interest waiver under the Government Order dated 22 March 2003 because the scheme applied only to dealers with outstanding dues as on 31 March 2002, which the petitioner did not have. The writ petition therefore failed on maintainability and on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a demand notice for interest was maintainable after the petitioner had already pursued the statutory revision against the assessment order to finality; and (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to waiver of interest under the Government Order dated 22 March 2003.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a demand notice for interest was maintainable after the petitioner had already pursued the statutory revision against the assessment order to finality.

Analysis: The demand for interest arose out of the assessment year 1986-87 and was linked to the tax liability already adjudicated in the statutory proceedings. The liability to pay interest on unpaid trade tax was treated as a statutory liability under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Since the petitioner had invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the matter had attained finality, the same issue could not be reopened through a fresh writ petition. The demand notice was only consequential to the final assessment and could not be independently assailed when the underlying order was no longer open to challenge. The petition was therefore treated as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The writ petition, so far as it challenged the demand of interest after finality of the assessment proceedings, was not maintainable and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to waiver of interest under the Government Order dated 22 March 2003.

Analysis: The scheme under the Government Order applied only to dealers who had outstanding tax dues as on 31 March 2002 and who satisfied the conditions of payment within the specified period. On the petitioner's own showing, the disputed tax had already been deposited well before the cut-off date and the petitioner was not in arrears when the scheme came into force. The conditions for availing waiver of interest were therefore not satisfied. The interpretation of the Government Order did not support any exemption in favour of the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to waiver of interest under the Government Order dated 22 March 2003.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the demand of interest failed on maintainability as well as on merits, and the writ petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition cannot be used to reopen a demand consequential to a tax liability that has already attained finality in statutory proceedings, and a waiver scheme applies only to those taxpayers who strictly satisfy its stated eligibility conditions.

---