TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 09-09-2005, by allowing the Rectification Application filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax? 2. Whether there was a mistake committed by the Tribunal in deciding the second appeal by directing the assessing authority to calculate interest at 36% in place of 96% charged by the first Appellate Authority as against 144% charged by the Sales Tax Officer? 3. Whether it is open to the Revenue to object to the reduction of interest at 36% when the Revenue did not raise any objection to the reduction at the time of hearing the appeals? 4. Whether having accepted the working of interest at the time of hearing is it open to Revenue to say later on that no objection was given for the F.Y. 1996- 1997 only? 5. Whether it was open to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est at 36% and that is how the quantum or amount of interest was reduced. Later on, a Rectification Application was filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal was requested to restore the levy of tax at 36% for the year 1997-98. This was objected to and that is how the interest at the rate leviable by Act was restored. Being aggrieved by that order, the Reference Application was filed by the dealer, on which the order has been passed, referring the above questions. 3. Mr.Surte has invited our attention to the first proviso which appears below Clause (b) of Sub-section 3 of Section 36 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as was prevailing at the time to submit that the authorities under the Act had powers to remit the whole or any part of the inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e perused the paper book. The Tribunal while deciding the two Second Appeals passed a common order on 9th September, 2005. That order reads as under: "Both these matters were fixed for hearing of stay applications at Pune Camp. However, since the only dispute involved in both these second appeals is levy of interest under Section 36(3)(b), both the sides argued matters finally. 2. The appellant is a Public Ltd. Company carrying on the business of manufacturing and reselling medicines. The first appeals filled by the appellant against assessment order, for the period 1996-97 and 1997-98 under B.S.T. Act, the appellate authority partly allowed both appeals giving some partial reliefs, and restricted levy of interest under section 36(3)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... calculate interest @ 36% and do the needful as per provisions of law. If any refund arise, it may be refunded to appellant. 6. The dealer pointed out in the Memo of Appeal, Second Appeals and during the course of arguments that there are financial difficulties. The company has virtually closed down its business. The substantive order be maintained, but the interest be remitted. The Tribunal passed the order as reproduced above not just on concession on the Revenue, but also upon an independent satisfaction. The interest was thus remitted. Mr.Surte is right in contending that the then legal provisions had a proviso which enabled the Commissioner or any Appellate or Revisional Authority to remit the whole or any part of interest payable i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Officer representing the revenue did not object to the reduction of the rate of interest, yet, the facts disclose that Sub-clause (a) and (b) of the third proviso of Section 36(3)(b) are not at all applicable to the case of the applicant. The Tribunal then records that during the period of assessment from 1st April, 1997 to 31st March, 1998, the dealer did not file returns in paying the tax. He has not satisfied the Tribunal about the ingredient of Clauses (a) and (b) of the 3rd Proviso to Section 36(3). The Tribunal found out the mistake made by it by virtually copying the contents of the Rectification Application of the Revenue. In other words, it reproduced the contents of that Rectification Application, as its own reasoning which is....