TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was delivered by DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA J.-Leave granted. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated December 10, 2007 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the tax revision filed by the appellant under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") impugning the judgment dated August 14, 2007 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow rejecting the second appeal of the appellant/assessee. Various issues were raised before the Tribunal as well as the High Court with respect to the liability of the appellant/assessee to pay tax which, in nutshell, are as follows: (i) That there is no transfe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The High Court and the other forums below, for the reasons mentioned therein, have held that the appellant is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of tax under section 8(1) of the Act (i.e., at two per cent per mensem from the date of filing of returns). Whereas, it is the appellants case that the interest is payable as per section 8(1B) of the Act (i.e., at 1.5 per cent per mensem from the expiration of the date mentioned in the assessment order which in the present case is March 15, 2002). As a short question is involved we need not mention the facts of the case in great detail. In brief the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of the beverages an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the appellant/assessee had disputed the liability to pay tax and raised a bona fide dispute they would not be liable to pay interest under section 8(1) of the Act. Resultantly, interest, if any, can only be charged under section 8(1B) which covers cases which do not fall within the ambit of section 8(1) of the Act. All the abovesaid contentions were negated by the counsel appearing for the respondent and it was submitted that after disclosing the turnover in its accounts a dealer cannot run away from his liability to pay tax by raising false and frivolous dispute. In case, if he does so then he will be liable to pay penal rate of interest under section 8(1) of the Act. Section 8(1) of the Act, prior to its amendment in 2002, is re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted by the dealers in any return or proceeding under this Act, whichever is greater. (iii) If no accounts were maintained, then according to the estimate of the dealer and includes the amount payable under section 3B or sub- section (6) of section 4B. It is not in dispute in the present case that the appellant has itself mentioned in its accounts the turnover in respect of rentals by distributors of glass bottles and crates. However, the appellant has disputed that the said turnover is liable to tax under the Act. The question that emerged for adjudication before forum and court below was whether the tax is payable under the Act on the turnover from rentals of glass bottles and crates. The court has answered the question in the af....