TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he period commencing from 1st June, 1984 to 6th of March, 1985, for the alleged non-payment of Rs. 5,736.08, being the tax admitted in the return filed for the month of May, 1984, by the petitioner. Brief material facts asserted in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a partnership concern registered as a dealer both under the U.P. as well as Central Sales Tax Acts. According to the petitioner it submitted its return of turnover for the month of May, relevant to the assessment year 1984 and deposited the tax due of Rs. 5,736.08 through Cheque No. 470980 dated 26th June, 1984, against a receipt issued by the department, a photostat copy whereof has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, in January, 1985, when....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o him, the payment of that cheque had not been made till then and in these circumstances, the bank manager was required to take necessary action in that behalf so that the petitioner was not made unnecessarily liable for payment of interest in the event the validity of the cheque expired before its encashment. A copy of that letter was also endorsed to the petitioner. It is not clear from the petition as to what reply was received by the assessing officer from the bank. However, on 27th December, 1986, the petitioner sent another letter to the assessing officer stating inter alia, that the petitioner is regularly paying admitted tax along with its monthly return and the petitioner was ready to issue another cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,736....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ormed the petitioner that the said cheque was never presented for payment during its currency period, i.e., 25th December, 1984. The bank further informed the petitioner that another cheque bearing No. 470979 dated 26th June, 1984 for Rs. 4,250.61 had been paid on 10th July, 1984. It may be observed that the other cheque referred to in the letter of the bank was also deposited by the petitioner with the Sales Tax Department against the same receipt against which the disputed cheque was deposited. Fortified with the information furnished by the bank, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 5,736.08 and also made a written representation dated 7th of March, 1989, disputing its liability to pay the interest on that amount. It seems that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred earlier. Further, if for some reason the cheque could not be presented for encashment by the department, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the payment of interest on the footing that the admitted tax was not paid in time by the petitioner. We have considered the contention carefully and in our opinion, there is much substance in it. In the presence of the receipt against which the disputed cheque was deposited (vide annexure 1 to the writ petition), particularly when the writ allegations have not been controverted, we have no reason to disbelieve the petitioner that it has not made the payment of Rs. 5,736.08 through the cheque in question. The principles which govern the cases where the payment is made through cheque, are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se rules, deposit the total tax due under the Act on the turnover of sales or purchases or both, as the case may be, disclosed in the return and shall submit to the Sales Tax Officer, along with the return, treasury challan, bank draft or cheque for the amount so deposited. Rule 48 of those Rules which provides for the manner of payment of any amount payable under the Act or the Rules, as tax, fee, penalty, etc., by its clauses expressly envisages that such deposit may be made by cheque issued by the assessee himself or bank draft along with challan in quadruplicate submitted to the officer or authority concerned on or before the due date of payment. The explanation attached to the rule says that the payment of more than Rs. 500 shall be ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by the department in time, the blame cannot be shifted on the petitioner so as to make it liable for payment of interest under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act on the allegation that the payment of admitted tax was not made in time. The default, if any, lay on the part of the Revenue in not realising the proceeds of the cheque though tendered when the payment of tax ought to have been made. The payment offered earlier through the cheque cannot be ignored so as to make the assessee liable to pay interest on the ground that neither the cheque was encashed nor it was traceable on the record of the assessment file. A perusal of the assessment order shows that there is no mention or whisper of the various letters t....