TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (2) TMI 98
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve ever been issued to the petitioner. But on 23rd February, 1970, the Sales Tax Officer has demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 13,904.97 as interest on the reduced amount of taxes with effect from 1st February, 1964. This demand is questioned before us. 2.. The grounds of challenge are two: (1) recovery of tax having been stayed pending appeals, there was no default in payment of tax; (2) there was no fresh notice of demand after the appellate order. 3.. We do not entertain the first ground. It appears from the petition that after filing appeals the petitioner obtained from the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, an order staying realisation of fifty per cent. of the disputed tax till the disposal of appeals. But a copy of the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent. per annurn shall run on the amount then remaining due from the date of expiry of the time specified in the said notice, or from the commencement of the said Adhiniyam, as the case may be, and shall be added to the amount of tax and be deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax: Provided that where as a result of appeal, revision or reference, or of any other order of a competent court or authority, the amount of tax is varied, the interest shall be recalculated accordingly: Provided further that the interest on the excess amount of tax payable under an order of enhancement shall run from the date of such order if such excess remains unpaid for six months after the order." 6......
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice of demand were envisaged, the proviso should have used the word "calculated". Again, the proviso requires recalculation of interest even when the tax is varied by the order of a competent court. It is conceded that the order of the assessing authority will not merge in the court's order. Accordingly the doctrine of merger, if applied to section 8, will create an anomaly. An anomalous interpretation should not ordinarily be accepted. 10.. The second proviso clearly excludes the application of the docment of merger. It is a proviso to the first proviso. It provides that where on appeal the assessment is enhanced, then interest on the difference between the amount assessed originally and the amount assessed on appeal will run from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner. 14.. Durga Dutt Chunni Lal v. State of U.P.[1969] 23 S.T.C. 432. is a decision of our court under the Sales Tax Act. Following Seghu Buchiah's case(5), it was held that sales tax is not payable until a fresh notice of demand has been issued after the appellate order. The case of interest was not at all in issue in that case and so the language of section 8 did not receive any consideration. Our attention has also been drawn to three unreported decisions of our court. Those cases are: Masitullah Khan v. Collector, Shahjahanpur[1969] 23 S.T.C. 106. (Writ No. 1417 of 1968 dated 23rd July, 1968), Sri Ram Autar Agarwal v. Sales Tax Officer, Bareilly (Writ No. 1659 of 1967 dated 13th September, 1968) and Ram Kishan Das Brij Mohan Lal v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice of assessment and demand in respect of any tax ... is served upon a dealer by an assessing authority and an appeal ... is filed in respect of such tax....., then- (a) where as a result of such appeal the amount of such tax..... is enhanced, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a fresh notice only in respect of the amount by which such tax..... (is) enhanced, and any proceeding in relation to the amount specified in the notice already served upon him before the disposal of such appeal,..... may be continued from the stage at which it stood immediately before such disposal; (b) where as a result of such appeal..... the amount of such tax.....is reduced,- (i) it shall not be necessary for the assessing authority to ....