AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 28.6.2001 for the assessment year 1995-96, an amount of Rs. 62,566/- was confirmed against the petitioner as the differential tax payable by the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 7,09,875/- was imposed as a penalty under section 12 (3) and 22 (2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 on the petitioner. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (CT) Appeals vide A.P.No.156 of 2001 by admitting the tax liability partly by confining it to Rs. 15,718/-and the penalty of Rs. 7,09,875/- imposed on the petitioner. 4. During the pendency of the above appeal, Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 was enacted with effect from 1.7.2002. In terms of the above enactment, assessees were entitled to settle their dispute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the petitioner has worked for the amount payable under the settlement scheme on 50% of the total tax due and 25% of the said 50% as penalty which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the scheme under the Act. 10. According to the respondent, the petitioner has to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,04,516/-which is 15% of the penalty levied under Section 12 (3) and 22 (2) of the TNGST Act, 1959 in terms of Section 7(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision has to be read plainly and there is nothing to be intended by asking the petitioner to pay amounts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e; 7((2) The irterest payable by an applicant on the amount determined under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be twenty-five percentum of the interest payable at the rate specified under the relevant Act and the same; shall be paid before the issue of certificate under section 8. 14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, rate applicable to the petitioner is under Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002 as the petitioner was in arrears of tax and penalty. It is submitted that as per the above provision, the petitioner required to pay 50% of tax in dispute and 25% of such 50% of tax and thus the amount paid by the petitioner was as follows:- " 50% of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or deletion. Though the settlement of dispute is to prejudice of the revenue, nevertheless it is on account of the defect in the method prescribed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The Act has a defective design as a result of which an unintended benefit accrues to the petitioner. In this case, the petitioner's case is covered under the situation contemplated under Section 7(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Settlement of Disputes) Act, 2002. 19. The cardinal rule of principle in tax laws is "nothing to be inferred or intended". 20. In Cape Brandy Syndicate's (T921) 1KB 64 it was held as follows:- " i. In a taxing Act on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt which is of considerable vintage i.e.CIT v.Elis C. Reid [CITv.Elis C. Reid, 1930 SCC OnLine Bom 58: AIR 1931 Bom 333], has been referred to and, in fact, relied upon to observe that reasons of morality and fairness can have no application to bring a citizen who is not within the four corners of the taxing statute within its fold so as to make him liable to payment of tax. In this regard paras 32, 33 and 34 of the opinion rendered in Shabina Abraham[Shabina Abraham v.CCE, (2015) 10 SCC 770 : (2015) 322 ELT 372] would commend to us for recapitulation and, therefore, are extracted below: - 32. The impugned judgment in the present case has referred to Elis C. Reid case [CITv.Elis C. Reid, 1930 SCC OnLine Bom 58 : AIR 1931 Bom 333]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute.' 34. This Court has, in a plethora of judgments, referred to the aforesaid principles. Suffice it to quote from one of such judgments of this Court in CST v.Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [CSTv.Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., (1961) 2 SCR 189 : AIR 1961 SC 1047] SCR at p. 198: (AIR p. 1051, para 11) " 11 ... in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed: it cannot imply anything which is not ex....