2017 (3) TMI 1486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate with Sandeep Goyal for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents JUDGMENT This order will dispose of two CWP Nos. 6416 and 9988 of 2005, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts have been extracted from CWP No. 6416 of 2005. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 30.9.2004....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 12%. The change was neither noticed by the petitioner nor its counsel and the tax was continued to be charged @ 8% from the buyers and deposited accordingly. The assessment of the petitioner was framed vide order dated 26.8.2003 accepting the rate of tax @ 8%. The revisional proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on audit objection regarding rate of tax. Vide impugned order dated 30.9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d at that time. He further referred to an earlier order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal-I, Punjab, in M/s Fazilka Gas Service, Fazilka vs State of Punjab (2004) 24 PHT 265, where demand of interest under similar circumstances was set aside by the Tribunal but the decision was not followed in the case in hand. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, while not disputing the judgments r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner and its counsel, the tax was charged and deposited @ 8%. The assessing authority also framed assessment on 26.8.2003 accepting the tax @ 8%. The issue was raised by the audit party. Thereafter, the matter was taken up in revision. Demand for difference of tax was raised. In addition, the interest was also levied. The petitioner did not dispute the demand of tax and deposited the same....