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>Court rules in favor of dealer challenging interest demand under Section 24(3) of Sales Tax Act.</h1> <h3>S.K. Decorations Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner,</h3> S.K. Decorations Versus The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, The Deputy Commissioner, - TMI Issues:Challenge to notice demanding interest under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act based on dishonored cheques.Analysis:The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged a notice demanding interest under Section 24(3) of the Act due to dishonored cheques collected during inspection. The demand was made without any assessment to tax, solely relying on the dishonor of cheques. The Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the liability, citing a statement recorded by Enforcement Wing Officials. However, the court held that relying on the petitioner's statement alone cannot justify levying statutory interest under Section 24(3) without fulfilling the specified conditions.The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in EID Parry (India) Ltd. case, emphasizing that interest becomes payable under Section 24(3) only on unpaid amounts after the specified payment date in Section 24(1). The court highlighted the need for assessment and a notice of demand for interest to be levied. In a similar case involving Dharmapuri District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., the court ruled in favor of the dealer, stating that once returns are accepted, there must be a provisional assessment before claiming dues. The court clarified that if the dealer does not admit the return and assessment is completed later, interest cannot be levied without proper assessment procedures.Based on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and previous judgments, the court concluded that the demand for interest in the present case was unjustified and lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned order demanding interest, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without costs.
TaxTMI 