1996 (6) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. 2.. For the assessment year 1988-89, petitioner filed annual return declaring a total turnover of Rs. 4,49,86,790. Petitioner was assessed to pay tax of Rs. 35,98,943.20 which included turnover tax also. Assessment order is dated December 23, 1989 and is produced as exhibit P1. It further stated that an amount of Rs. 35,50,408.90 had already....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x payable was Rs. 2,24,933.95. To exhibit P3, petitioner gave exhibit P4 reply. Liability to pay turnover tax is admitted and it is contended that petitioner was advised that the tax need be paid only at the end of the year. Thereafter, petitioner received notice under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 to pay penal interest. Hence this original petition is filed challenging exhibits P3 and P5 notices....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exceeds the limit, petitioner is liable to pay the turnover tax. There is no necessity to issue a demand notice as a condition precedent before levying penal interest. He relied on the decisions reported in Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1992] 86 STC 259 (Ker) [FB]; [1992] 1 KLT 658 and Gangadharan v. Additional Sales Tax Officer [1993] 91 STC 80 (Ker). 6.. The Full Bench of this Court in the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the tax is due then the liability to pay interest automatically arises. Decisions in Maruti Wire Industries Private Limited v. Sales Tax Officer [1995] 96 STC 157 (Ker); (1994) 2 KLT 44 and Cochin Tea Syndicate v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assmt.) [1993] 91 STC 156 (Ker); 1993 KLJ (TC) 258 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. In ....