TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilable in the memorandum and those framed additionally are as follows:- "A. Whether the reliance placed by the lower authorities on section 55C in exercising the suo motu revision is right in law in the light of the fact that the present case pertains to the assessment year 1997-1998 and the provision (Section 55C) came into effect only from 01.01.2000 onwards? B. Whether the lower authorities were right in appropriating the amount paid by the petitioner towards the fictitious interest amount for which there was no demand in the original order or in the modified order? C. Whether the Tribunal was right in sustaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 35 of the KGST Act? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The revisional order directed the Assessing Officer to compute the interest and the balance tax due. The assessee challenged the same in appeal, which failed and the assessee is before us raising the above questions of law from the order of the Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/ assessee would argue that Section 55C was introduced only in the year 2000 and the assessment is pertaining to an earlier year. There could be no application of Section 55C to a prior year. It is further contended that there was no demand made by the Assessing Officer and in such circumstances there could be no levy of interest made. It is also argued that there is a limitation provided under Section 17 of the KGST Act for completion of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vy of interest made, at the time of assessment and as a result no demand raised, the liability for interest would not arise is the argument. Yet another plea is that the assessment being liable to be completed before the limitation provided of five years there could be no interest levied after the said period. The supplementary questions raised also project a ground on the sequence of amendments made to Section 23 and its effect on the subject assessment year; 1997-1998. 7. An assessment completed does not necessarily involve the determination of interest, which is an automatic levy as per the statute. Section 23(3) is to be extracted to throw further light on the above proposition: "23(3) If the tax or any other amount assessed or due u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er stood enhanced; rejecting certain claims raised by the assessee. 9. A reading of the provision also indicate that the interest accrues when the dealer or other person fails to pay the amounts assessed or due under the KGST Act, within the time prescribed in the Act or in any Rule made there under. Only in other cases, where there is no such prescription, there is the requirement of a notice of demand for payment within a specific time; on expiry of which alone the interest accrues. The Act and Rules provide for payment of tax for a month, along with monthly returns filed, in the very next month, before the 10th of every such subsequent month. Hence the interest as levied by the statute accrues from the time the tax or any other amounts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there a notice of demand required for its accrual. 12. In the present case the assessment was completed within the period of limitation provided under Section 17, in the year 2003; after Section 55C came into the statute. The assessee had filed appeals and later by Annexure D an order was passed giving effect to the modifications as made by the Appellate Tribunal. At that point, the levy of interest was not taken note of and the appropriation under Section 55C was not also applied. In such circumstances, it was perfectly in order for the Deputy Commissioner to have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 35. The appropriation being automatic under Section 55C and being a statutory prescription the assessee cannot wriggle out of the ....