2009 (1) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....circumstances of the case, the petitioner was liable to pay interest from the date of filing of return or from the date of revising the assessment when the tax had become actually due?" The brief facts of the case as discernible from the reference order dated October 14, 1996 passed by the Tribunal, are that the case of the applicantdealer, who is a registered dealer under the sales tax laws deals in hosiery goods, in respect of assessment year 1982-83 was taken up for assessment and the assessment proceedings were commenced on October 11, 1984. It is alleged that the dealer wilfully sought adjournments on 59 occasions from October 29, 1984 to February 20, 1987. Later on the case was transferred to the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana-II, w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rutiny of order dated January 18, 1989 passed by the Assessing Authority, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-III, exercising the powers of the Commissioner, found that the addition due to surprise inspection has been wrongly waived. Accordingly, the revisional authority initiated suo motu revision proceedings to revise the assessment order. On October 20, 1991, an additional demand of Rs. 54,794 including tax of Rs. 17,606, penalty of Rs. 200 under section 23 and penalty of Rs. 8,500 under section 10(7) and interest of Rs. 20,688 under section 11D of the Act was raised. Against order dated October 20, 1991 revision was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the question "whether the Assistant Excise and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... State counsel for the Revenue and perusing the paper book with her able assistance we are of the considered view that the matter is no longer res integra. A similar question of law has already been answered by a Division Bench of this court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in the case of Chaudhary Tractor Company v. State of Haryana [2007] 8 VST 10, holding that the assessee is not liable to pay interest for the period before the demand was raised against him. The Division Bench also referred to the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court rendered in the cases of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [1994] 94 STC 422, Frick India Limited v. State of Haryana [1994] 95 STC 188 and Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Lt....