2018 (2) TMI 1546

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... consent on either side, these Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. 2. The legal issue involved in these Writ Petitions is, as to whether the first respondent was justified in levying and demanding interest under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Luxuries Act, 1981, when there is no such provision provided under the Act, especially, Section 9 of the Act. 3. The first respondent seeks to invoke Section 24 (3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 to levy penal interest. This question came up for consideration before this Court, in the case of S.Gurunathan Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Thirupathur, and another, reported in [(2015) 77 VST 45 (Madras)]. The only difference being in the said enactment, which was the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... after Karthik Roller Mills case the Legislature amended 2(1)(b) to include the words "and interest". 19. State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. M.A. Mathurai Veerasamy and Co.14. 52 STC 131 (cited supra) had rightly held that if it was the intention of the legislature that the entire gamut of the provisions of the principal Act were to be applied to the later Act then it could very well have said so: and that if the S.3(2) had been so worded then, there would have been no difficulty to hold that S.22 of the TNGST Act was also attracted by reference. We respectfully think that this is the correct way to understand the Section. We have to read S.2(1)(b) in an identical way. If so, then the AST Act as it reads before the amendment had no charging prov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... assessment under TNGST Act. The argument of the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents that the petitioner having submitted the application under Samadhan Scheme cannot question the orders levying and confirming interest and penalty also does not hold water, for the simple reason that the question of jurisdiction, being legal point, can be raised at any time. Further, in view of the bar under Article 265 on the state, the question of waiver is not applicable to a taxing statute. 21. In view of the above, the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 26.04.2004, confirmed by the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12.09.2008, are set aside insofar as the levy and demand of interest of Rs. 2,09,700/- and Rs. 5,....