TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1959 for delayed remittance of tax. 2. Heard Mr. K. A. Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Hariharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. 3. According to the respondents, the petitioner had wrongly availed the Interest Free Sales Tax (IFST) deferral benefit for the sales of wide width steel strips from April 2000 to August 2000 before reaching the bench mark. According to the petitioner, the penal interest can be demanded only if there is an admission of liability or omission to pay the admitted tax after the demand is raised. Since the petitioner had not admitted the liability and had paid the tax demanded only after the demand has been made, no penal interest can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipt of the demanded tax. As such, penal interest could not have been imposed. The honourable apex court in a decision in E. I. D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai reported in [2005] 141 STC 12 (SC) had settled this proposition with the following observations (pages 21-24 in 141 STC) : "12. To consider this aspect, one needs to look at section 13, which has been set out herein above. It is to be seen that under section 13(2) tax could be paid in advance on the basis of monthly returns. A plain reading of section 13(2) shows that the tax which has to be paid on the basis of such returns. If, as now contended by Mr. Iyer, the returns are incomplete or incorrect then, under section 13(3), the assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 13(2) tax is to be paid 'on the basis of such returns'. Tax as per the returns has admittedly been paid. If the returns were incomplete or incorrect as now claimed the assessing authority had to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under section 24(3). In this case, it is an admitted position that as soon as the revised return was filed the appellants paid the tax as per the revised return. Therefore they paid the tax even before the final assessment took place. Thus the claim for interest, under section 24(3) from the date that the advances were paid to the sugarcane growers is not sustainable. There is n....