Monthly profession tax payment obligation clarifies that delayed remittance attracts statutory interest under the rules

The Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act and Rules were construed as imposing a monthly obligation on employers to deduct profession tax, file the prescribed return and remit the tax with proof of payment. Although no express date appeared before the 2011 amendment, the scheme, including the monthly return form, monthly deduction rule and the definition of month, meant the liability was time-bound and ordinarily due by the end of the succeeding calendar month. Failure to pay within that monthly period attracted statutory interest under the Act and Rules, and the later amendment specifying payment by the 10th day of the succeeding month was treated as clarificatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether any time limit was prescribed for filing the return and payment of profession tax under the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 and the Rules, 1987. (ii) Whether interest was payable when the profession tax was not paid within the prescribed time.

Issue (i): Whether any time limit was prescribed for filing the return and payment of profession tax under the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987 and the Rules, 1987.

Analysis: The statutory scheme imposed a monthly obligation on the employer to deduct profession tax from salaries and wages and to pay it on behalf of employees. Section 7 required returns to be filed in the prescribed form for such period and by such dates as may be prescribed, and the return had to be accompanied by proof of payment of the tax due. Form V itself was a monthly return form. Rule 12 required filing in Form V, Rule 13 linked payment to the return, and Rule 15 stated that deduction had to be made every month. Rule 2(i)(c) defined month as a calendar month. Reading these provisions with the General Clauses Act definition of month, the absence of an express date before the 2011 amendment did not mean absence of any time limit.

Conclusion: A time limit existed, and the return and tax were payable on a monthly basis, ordinarily by the end of the succeeding calendar month for the relevant wage month.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable when the profession tax was not paid within the prescribed time.

Analysis: Section 11 made an assessee in default liable to pay prescribed interest if tax was not deducted at the time of payment of salary or wages, or if, after deduction, it was not paid as required. Rule 24 likewise provided interest from the delayed date specified for payment. Since the liability to deduct and pay was monthly, non-payment within that monthly timeframe attracted interest. The later amendment to Rule 12 specifying payment by the 10th day of the succeeding month was treated as clarificatory of the existing monthly obligation and not as creating the first-ever time limit.

Conclusion: Interest was rightly leviable for failure to pay the profession tax within the monthly time limit.

Final Conclusion: The statutory provisions required monthly deduction, return and payment of profession tax, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute and its rules impose a monthly obligation to deduct and remit tax, the return and payment must be treated as time-bound even if an express date is introduced later, and delayed payment attracts statutory interest.

---