Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interest under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be levied on tax that the assessee had continuously disputed and never admitted as payable.
Analysis: Section 8(1) fastens liability only on tax admittedly payable, meaning tax disclosed in the dealer's accounts or admitted in a return or other proceeding. The assessee had from the inception disputed its liability to tax on the purchase of opium, including on the grounds that it was not a dealer and that Article 285 of the Constitution of India barred the levy. The tax was paid under protest, and the issue of interest had remained unresolved for years. On these facts, the assessed tax could not be treated as admitted tax merely because assessment had been made or because the liability arose under a retrospective amendment. A bona fide and persistent dispute as to tax liability takes the case outside Section 8(1), though the authority may consider the consequences under Sections 8(1-A) and 8(1-B).
Conclusion: Interest under Section 8(1) was not leviable against the assessee because the tax was not admittedly payable.
Ratio Decidendi: Interest under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 is payable only on tax that is admitted in the return, accounts, or other proceedings, and not on tax whose liability is bona fide disputed from the outset.