TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>FCI ordered to pay interest on delayed tax deposits under Tripura VAT Rules</h1> <h3>ASHISH KUMAR DEY Versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI</h3> ASHISH KUMAR DEY Versus FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 25 (Tripura) Issues:1. Interpretation of provisions related to deduction and deposit of tax amounts by FCI.2. Liability of Food Corporation of India (FCI) to pay interest on deducted amounts.3. Compliance with statutory requirements by FCI in depositing deducted amounts.4. Entitlement of petitioners to statutory interest.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Tripura Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, concerning the deduction and deposit of tax amounts by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) from the bills of contractors. The court emphasizes the obligation of the FCI to deduct and deposit such amounts within the stipulated time frame as per the rules.2. The central issue revolves around the liability of FCI to pay interest on the deducted amounts that were not deposited with the State-respondents within the statutory period. The court examines the provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 7, which mandate the payment of interest by FCI if they fail to deposit the deducted amounts promptly.3. The judgment scrutinizes the compliance of FCI with the statutory requirements regarding the deduction and deposit of tax amounts. The court notes the failure of FCI to deposit the deducted amounts within the specified timeline, leading to the conclusion that FCI did not fulfill its obligations as required by the rules.4. Lastly, the court determines the entitlement of the petitioners to receive statutory interest on the deducted amounts. The judgment rules in favor of the petitioners, directing FCI to pay the statutory interest at specified rates and complete the payments within a prescribed timeline. Additionally, the court expresses concerns over FCI's conduct and emphasizes the importance of timely compliance with legal obligations to avoid unnecessary litigation.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court regarding the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, the liability of FCI, compliance with statutory requirements, and the entitlement of the petitioners to receive statutory interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
