AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 3,44,706. admitted tax. The assessment order was passed on June 28, 2006. Excess payment of Rs. 3,44,706 was adjusted against the total quantum of interest levied by the assessing officer and net demand was shown at Rs. 9,21,131. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said assessment order, the petitioner-company preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle (in short, "the DCCT/SG"), on August 31, 2006 wherein it disputed levy of interest amounting to Rs. 12,65,837, levy of purchase tax amounting to Rs. 1,841.80. and levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 25,000 along with the tax amounting to Rs. 44,363. During the pendency of appeal, it filed an application under section 5 of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999 (in short, "the SOD Act") before the designated authority seeking settlement of the disputed amount. In the application filed in Form I, the disputed amount was shown at Rs. 13,37,042 (tax Rs. 46,205, penalty Rs. 25,000 and interest Rs. 12,65,837). It paid Rs. 18,483 against the disputed tax and Rs. 2,311 against interest as per requirement of section 7 of the SOD Act. Moreover....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d November 12, 2008 passed by DCCT/SG Circle and also the purported order dated April 30, 2007 passed by the designated authority rejecting the petitioner's application for settlement under the provision of SOD Act. The final order passed by the Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow: "It is made clear that the petitioner's application for settlement under the SOD Act is to be taken up first in accordance with law and only if the application is rejected on any lawful ground, the appeal will revive and only thereafter the appeal can be taken up for hearing." Accordingly, the Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Siliguri Circle (designated authority), respondent No. 1, in pursuance of the order dated December 23, 2008 passed an order on June 16, 2010 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 12,65,837, which according to the designated authority was admittedly payable by the petitioner, within a period of fifteen days from the date of issue of the order in question. It was also made categorically clear that in the event of the petitioner-company's failure to make the payment, the application filed by the petitioner-company under the SOD Act would stand rejected. In this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sented by Sri B. Majumdar, learned State Representative. He defends the order dated June 16, 2010 by referring to the provision of section 4 of the SOD Act read with rule 2(a) of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Rules, 1999 (in short, "the SOD Rules") and the Explanation appended therein. The Explanation appended to rule 2(a) of the SOD Rules runs as below: "Explanation.--For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that the 'appeal or revision pending' shall not include any appeal or revision where the admitted tax, penalty, or interest, is not paid in full by the applicant before making of an application by him for the settlement under section 5 but shall include any such appeal or revision where the applicant has failed to comply with any other requirement, including the requirement of time for presenting the application for such appeal or revision, under the relevant Act, before the appropriate appellate or revisional authority." The learned State Representative submits that it does not matter whether the petitioner-company disputed levy of interest before the appellate authority or not. The petitioner was liable to pay interest for del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r there was any disputable dispute. The question is therefore whether the amount of tax shown to have been admitted/disputed by an applicant in the application in form I under the SOD Rules should be accepted or whether there is any scope to examine its correctness. Section 31 of the 1994 Act provides for levy of interest for non-payment or delayed payment of tax before assessment. The rate of such interest and the mode of such calculation of such interest have been detailed therein in unambiguous term. Liability to pay interest, in view of the provisions of section 31, is automatic. A dealer making delay in the matter of payment of tax prior to assessment is under obligation to pay interest in the manner as prescribed under rule 167 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (in short, "the 1995 Rule"). Rule 167 is quoted hereinbelow: "167. Payment of interest for delayed payment or non-payment of tax payable before assessment.--(1) Every dealer liable to pay interest under sub-section (1) of section 31 in respect of any period shall pay such interest at the time of making payment of tax payable in respect of such period. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the absence of any definition of the expression "dispute", we feel that it should be interpreted in a manner which would help to carry out the intention of the Legislature. Ordinarily no interpretation should be placed on a provision which would have the effect of making the provision either otiose or a dead letter. While enacting the SOD Act, we feel that the Legislature intended to settle disputes which are real, bona fide and require adjudication. It is not necessary that the disputes should be correct or accepted. Disputes mean an issue or controversy which are still alive and need determination by adjudicating authority as distinguished from sham disputes, settled issues, admitted facts or positions and clear provision of statute or rules. The SOD authorities cannot adjudicate on the merit of a dispute raised in appeal or revision but they can exercise for the limited purpose whether ex facie assessed dues are admitted or undisputed or accepted by the dealer. Such limited examination is an essential safeguard against any possible abuse of the process of law and no person can claim a right to abuse process of law and defeat the object and purpose of enacting the SOD....