TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (8) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said Act demanding a sum of Rs. 3,39,315 which comprises Rs. 1,72,076 as sales tax, Rs. 67,747 as surcharge and Rs. 99,492 as penal interest. Petitioner then approached the Government and obtained instalment facility as per (exhibit P2) order dated June 26, 1995. It is stated in the said communication that the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner is temporarily stayed subject to the petitioner pays 40 per cent of the demand on or before August 30, 1995 and the balance amount to be paid in six monthly instalments commencing from September 30, 1995. Pursuant to the said direction the petitioner had remitted Rs. 1,35,000 on August 30, 1995 evidenced by exhibit P3 and also paid the instalments; Rs. 34,000 on October 6, 1995 (e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to exhibit P2 order. It is also stated that the decision relied on by the petitioner was based on the provisions of section 23(3) of the KGST Act as it stood prior to the introduction of sub-section (3A) as per the Finance Act, 1994. It is further stated that the provisions of sub-section (3A) of section 23 of the KGST Act apply to all taxes and other amounts pending payment as on April 1, 1994. The challenge to the provisions of section 23(3A) of the KGST Act was also stated to be unsustainable. I have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. Special Government Pleader submits that the demand of penal interest for the period from February 9, 1995 till the date of payment of the entire amount was justified and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute. The only contention of the petitioner is that in view of exhibit P2 order in which there is no mention regarding the payment of interest for any period and in view of he decision of a division Bench of this court in Aman Traders v. State of Kerala [1987] 66 STC 54, the petitioner cannot be made liable for interest for the period after exhibit P2 Government Order. From the facts stated, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the liability to pay penal interest for the period from February 9, 1995 till June 26, 1995 (exhibit P2). The dispute is only with regard to the liability to pay penal interest for the period after June 26, 1995, i.e., the period covered by the Government Order under which the petitioner had paid the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 54 division Bench, with reference to the provisions of section 23(3) of the KGST Act held that the demand for penal interest could not be enforced if the petitioner had complied with the terms of the Government Order which will amount to an agreement. Section 23(3B), as already noted, could not apply to the facts of the present case. Hence there is no need to refer to the decision in Narani Stores' case [2001] 122 STC 621 (Ker); [2001] 9 KTR 355. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: Respondents are entitled to recover penal interest for the period from February 9, 1995 (exhibit P1 quantified the interest only till this date) till June 26, 1995 under section 23(3) of the KGST Act. However, it has to be....