Separate interest order remains valid where prior show cause notice was pending during assessment proceedings

A show cause notice on interest issued during assessment proceedings remained pending, so a later separate order levying interest was not void for lack of jurisdiction merely because it was not passed with the assessment order. The omission to decide interest and penalty simultaneously was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect. Rectification under Section 33 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act, 1973 was therefore unnecessary on these facts. The challenge to the separate interest order failed, and the levy of interest was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction to pass a separate order imposing interest after the assessment order had been passed, and whether the proper course was rectification under Section 33 of the Haryana Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Analysis: A separate notice calling upon the assessee to show cause against levy of interest and penalty had been issued during the pendency of assessment proceedings. Though the assessing authority ought ideally to have decided the question of penalty and interest along with the assessment order, the omission to do so did not render the subsequent order imposing interest void for want of jurisdiction. The earlier notice remained pending, and therefore there was no necessity to resort to rectification proceedings. The cited precedent concerning levy of interest without any prior order did not apply because, in the present case, notice had been issued and an order levying interest was subsequently made.

Conclusion: The separate order imposing interest was valid and the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the Tribunal's majority view was affirmed, leaving the levy of interest undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a show cause notice on interest is issued during assessment proceedings and remains pending, a later separate order imposing interest is not void merely because it was not passed simultaneously with the assessment order; at most, such omission is an irregularity.

---