1999 (3) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... accordingly was subjected to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. The tax was levied accordingly and for belated payment of tax interest was also levied and recovered from the petitioner. Even for 1986-87 tax was levied at 10 per cent on similar reasoning. Interest was also levied and recovered from the petitioner-firm for delayed payment of tax in 1990. The petitioner challenged the assessment order before this Court in writ petitions but the challenge failed when the writ petitions were dismissed on September 29, 1989. The petitioner went to Supreme Court against the said order. The petitioner also carried his appeal under the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Guntur, contending that the "agarbathies" do not fall under the entry "perfumes".....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....informed that the provisions of the Act do not permit any such interest as claimed. It was pointed out that the only provision under the Act relating to payment of interest on refund, was contained in section 33-F of the Act. The petitioner-firm's case did not fall under that provision and therefore the petitioner-firm's request was rejected. 3.. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm is that the petitioner-firm is entitled to interest on ground of equity and equality of treatment between the parties. It is argued that the State whenever collects taxes from the assessee, it recovers interest if payment is delayed by the assessee. For the same reason, the assessee should also be paid interest if amount is not refunded....