TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of by a common order and judgement. For convenience, we will refer to the facts from VATAP-41-2016. 3. According to the appellant, several questions of law arise in this appeal. However, by an order dated 21.09.2016, another Division Bench of this Court issued notice of motion only on question (v) which reads as under:- "(v) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the VAT Tribunal Punjab Chandigarh has grossly erred in upholding the order of the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Notified Authority as upheld by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Patiala imposing penalty under Section 53, under Section 60 and levying interest under Section 32(1) of the Punjab VAT Act?" The order dated 21.09.2016 reads: "Notice of motion for 19.01.2017 only on question No. (v) relating to levy of penalty under Section 53 of the Act". Question (v), however, is not limited to penalty. It also refers to interest. We have, therefore, decided question (v) in so far as it relates to interest as well. 4. The Act came into force with effect from 01.04.2005. The appellant claims to have commenced purchasing sugarcane only in November, 2005. According to the appellant, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impossible for us to say that such a tax cannot be levied on the ground that PGST Act, 1948 is a statute of general character which deals with sale or purchase tax in respect of all goods whereas the 1953 Act is a special Act which deals with all aspects including levy of purchase tax on sugar cane. The petitioner has convassed for the contrary view on the basis of the judgement rendered by 2 Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Sugar Mills (supra). The aforesaid judgement has been rendered by interpreting Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 by holding that both the Acts would operate in the same field. The underlying principle followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that the Sugarcane Act being a special Act pertaining to all aspects of control of the sugarcane as well as levy of purchase tax has to be preferred over the Finance Act which empower the State to levy all commercial taxes generally whereas the sugarcane Act empowered the levy of purchase tax only on sugarcane. Such a course would not be available to us as the specific Act which is applicable to the petitioner namely PGST Act 1948....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n question the correctness or otherwise of the common order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 17878 of 2008, dated 20.01.2010, whereby the High Court has dismissed all the writ petitions praying, inter alia, for quashing of notification issued by the Government of State of Punjab imposing tax at the rate of 50 paisa for 100 kgs on purchase of sugar cane by or on behalf of the sugar cane mills, dated 27.05.1998 and for issuance of declaration to the effect that no purchase tax on the purchase of sugarcane be levied and collected from them under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'). Insofar as this special leave petition is concerned, in our considered view, it may not be necessary for us to delve into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. We say so for the reason that the petitioner having filed the Writ Petition before the Writ Court had only questioned the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority, Hoshiarpur, Punjab under the provisions of the Act, dated 28.04.2008 and not impugned the relevant provisions of the Act. The peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itutional validity of Section 19 of the Act. The importance of this is that the appellant before us accepted the judgement of this Court at least on the issue of the constitutional validity of the Act. 8. The assessment proceedings were completed on 04.11.2013. An assessment order in respect of the assessment year 2009-2010 was passed on 04.11.2013. It is this assessment order that was challenged before the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala and thereafter before the Tribunal. As we mentioned earlier, the liability to pay tax under the Act is not in question. Only the imposition of interest under Section 32(1) and penalty under Sections 53 and 60 is in question before us. 9. Mr. M.L. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents were not entitled to levy either interest or penalty. He firstly contended that the liability for interest or penalty could arise only after the assessment order dated 04.11.2013. He then contended that in any event from 01.04.2005 to 20.01.2010, no penalty or interest could be charged as till 20.01.2010 the interim order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the additional amount of tax, payable along-with the interest at the rate specified under this Act for the period of delay, in the manner prescribed in sub-section (3). No such rectification shall, however, be allowed after the end of the financial year immediately following the year to which the rectification relates or issue of a notice for audit or assessment whichever, is earlier. Where such rectification results in excess amount of tax having been paid than due, such excess tax shall be refundable on application as per provisions of this Act and the rules framed thereunder. No adjustment shall, however, be allowed for such excess payment. (5) In addition to any return under sub-sections (1) and (2), the Commissioner or the designated officer may, require a taxable person or a registered person to furnish such further information along-with the returns or at any other time, as may be deemed necessary. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Commissioner or the designated officer, as the case may be, may by notice, direct a person other than a taxable person or a registered person, to file returns at such intervals and in such form and containing such in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed is not well founded. The appellant is both a taxable person and a registered person under the Act. Thus, under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 26, it was required to make a self-assessment of the tax and to file the return within the time prescribed. Under Section 26(3), every person is bound to pay the full amount of tax due from him as per the provisions of the Act. The word "prescribed" is defined in Section 2 (v) to mean prescribed by the Rules made under the Act. The Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 came into force with effect from 01.04.2005. Rule 36, inter alia, prescribes the time for payment. Rule 36 in so far as it is relevant reads as under:- R.- 36. Returns.- (1) Every taxable person shall file quarterly self-assessed return in Form VAT-15 within a period of thirty days from the date of expiry of each quarter along with the proof of the payment made into the appropriate Government Treasury and the Tax Deductions at Source (hereinafter referred to as the TDS ) certificates, if any: Provided that where a person opts to make the payment of tax through crossed cheque or bank draft, he shall enclose the crossed cheque or the bank draft, as the case may be, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding on various factors. For instance, the date for filing self-assessed returns by a taxable person is different if the sales are in the course of inter-state trade or export. The date for payment of tax varies depending upon the mode of payment viz. through crossed cheque or bank draft or otherwise. It also varies depending upon the nature of the transaction viz. if the sales are in the course of inter-state trade or export out of India. Lastly, the date of payment also depends upon the turnover. In other words, within the period stipulated from the date of expiry of each quarter, every taxable person such as the appellant is bound not merely to file the quarterly selfassessed return in Form VAT-15, but also the proof of payment or to make the payment. Thus, payment of the tax due is also to be made within the period stipulated in Rule 36 from the date of expiry of each quarter. "Quarter" is defined in Section 2 (y). 14. It follows, therefore, that the due date for payment is not the date of the final assessment, but the date stipulated in Rule 36. Under Section 26(3), every person is bound to pay the full amount of tax due from him as per the provisions of the Act. Thus, liabi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any assessee to avoid payment by the simple expedient of challenging the constitutional validity of a charging section. Interlocutory orders are only meant to protect the interest of an assessee by suspending the Department's right to recover the same temporarily. Interim orders do not create any right contrary to or in derogation of statutory or for that matter any liabilities. They do not determine the rights of parties. An injunction at the highest only suspends temporarily the liability for payment of tax. It does not by any stretch of imagination declare that the assessee was not liable to pay tax at all during the period of the subsistence of the injunction. The liability is at the highest only postponed from the date of the injunction to the date of the vacation thereof. When the injunction is vacated, the liability relates back to the date on which it was incurred i.e. the date on which the tax was due with all consequential benefits to the revenue thereafter. 22. In the facts of the present case, we see no reason to absolve the appellant of the liability under Sections 32(1), 53 and 60. We quoted the relevant part of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court which....