TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (8) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m of Rs. 18,44,356.43 during the year 1988-89. However, he withheld the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,89,420 out of the same without paying to Government till March 24, 1995. The 1st respondent by the issue of form No. 24 under the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules dated June 23, 1997 directed the petitioner to pay penal interest of Rs. 5,60,764. As against the demand petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, which was modified reducing the interest from Rs. 5,60,764 to Rs. 5,44,915. The petitioner put forward a second revision before the Commissioner who by order dated June 15, 1998 confirmed the Deputy Commissioner's order. The original petition is filed against these orders. 2.. The sum and substance of the contentions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23 of the Act deals with the payment and recovery of tax. Subsection (1) of section 23 of the Act deals with the payment of tax demanded. Sub-section (2) deals with payment of tax assessed and any other amount due. Sub-section (3) which is relevant is as follows: (3) If the tax or any other amount assessed or due under this Act is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time prescribed therefor in this Act or in any rule made thereunder and in other cases within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand, the dealer or other person shall pay, by way of interest, in the manner prescribed, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to- (a) one per cent of such amount for each month or part thereof for the first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and absolute. There is no need for a demand being made so as to request him to pay the tax. The distinction is that he is not the dealer who has to be assessed to pay the tax, but is one had collected the tax on behalf of the Government. He has no right to keep the tax beyond 28th of the succeeding month. Automatically it follows that there is failure to remit the tax as contemplated under section 22 read with sub-rule (26) of rule 5. All the contentions raised by the petitioner has to be read in the background of this factual position. 5.. A Full Bench of this Court in Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1992] 86 STC 259; (1992) 1 KLT 658 has categorically held that service of a notice of demand under section 23(3) of the Act is not an esse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest. The section also provides for other contingencies, including the non-payment of tax within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand issued. In such a situation where by selfassessment the tax becomes due on the filing of the return, a further notice of demand in form No. 14 is irrelevant or a surplusage. Rule 31 totally dispenses with service of a notice of demand for payment of interest due under section 23(3) of the Act. Therefore the decision of the Full Bench in P.C. Abdulla v. Sales Tax Officer [1992] 86 STC 259 (Ker), is still in force. In so far as the present case is concerned, this decision squarely applies. Another Full Bench of this Court in Pathrose Rice and Oil Mills v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s follows: "............In Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC), majority view was that all the three classes of persons, viz., (i) those who have not filed any return at all and who are later found to be liable to be assessed; (ii) those who have filed true return have not deposited the full amount of tax which they are liable to pay; and (iii) those who have filed a return making a wrong claim that either the whole or any part of the turnover is not taxable and who are subsequently found to have made a wrong claim, would be placed in the same position and they would all be liable to pay interest on the amount of tax which they are liable to pay, but have not paid as required by section 7(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. ....