TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.507/08 dt.09.01.2009 TA No.31/2009 dt.20.03.2009 53/2010 2 2000-01 21010310/00-01 dated 15.09.2008 STA No.506/08 dt.09.01.2009 TA No.30/2009 dt.20.03.2009 45/2010 3 2002-03 21010310/02-03 dated 15.09.2008 STA No.508/08 dt.09.01.2009 TA No.32/2009 dt.20.03.2009 47/2010 4 2003-04 21010310/03-04 dated 15.09.2008 STA No.509/08 dt.09.01.2009 TA No.33/2009 dt.20.03.2009 48/2010 5 2004-05 21010310/04-05 dated 15.09.2008 STA No.510/08 dt.09.01.2009 TA No.34/2009 dt.20.03.2009 49/2010 2.1 The circumstances, in brief stated, are that the Assessing Officer made assessment orders for the years 2000-01 to 2004-05. The dealer, aggrieved, filed first appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kottayam. The appellate authority, subject to the dealer depositing Rs. 10 lakhs in each one of the appeals, granted stay of the assessment orders. The dealer, in the interregnum, filed application before the assessing authority pointing out a few mistakes in the original assessment order, which could be corrected within the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The dates and events set out in ST Rev no. 45/2010 are adverted to for completing the narrative portion of the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing for respondents contended that if the turnover is included in the return the assessee will have no liability to pay interest on non-payment or short payment of tax, and if the same happens on account of misclassification of goods under different rates, Rule 21 (9) of the Rules authorises the assessing officer to scrutinize the returns filed and to make provisional or regular assessment demanding actual tax. Therefore according to counsel if there is failure on the part of the assessing officer assessee cannot be called upon to pay interest for the lapses of the officer. Special Government Pleader has referred to the decision of this Court in CHANDRAMANI TRADERS v. STATE OF KERALA, (2008) 16 VST 294 and two unreported decisions of this Court in ST Rev. No. 484 of 2004 and M.F.A. No. 331 of 2000 and contended that interest is payable under Section 23(3A) from the due date it was payable till payment, irrespective of the reason for non-payment, short payment or delayed payment of tax. 4. On going through the provisions both before and after the amendment, it is clear that interest is compensatory in nature inasmuch as it is payable from such date on which tax would have been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taxable turnover and further on account of misclassification of goods at lower rate of tax than the actual rate of tax that is payable on the turnover of goods. Further, even if the assessment is made based on the return filed, and such assessment happens to be incorrect later and the demand of tax is increased through revision of assessment under Section 19(1) pursuant to orders under Section 35(1), still the assessee will be liable to pay interest under Section 23(3A) on the differential tax that is between assessed tax and tax paid based on the return. (emphasis supplied) 5. On going through the judgment of this Court above referred, we do not find that this Court has considered the nature of interest payable under Section 23(3A) which we have found to be compensatory in nature. Further this Court has not examined the manner in which a dealer has to file return, the manner in which the dealer has to include turnover of various goods in the return to be filed and the manner of payment of tax along with return contemplated under the Rules. In view of our above finding, the judgment of this Court above referred cannot be said to be laying the correct interpretation of Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (supra), the question that arose was whether the publishers of newspapers were entitled to the benefit of Section 8(3)(b) read with Section 8(1)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 that entitled them to purchase raw materials required by them at the concessional rate of 4%. A similar contention is seen to have been put forward in the said. case also. In the said case also, the expression "goods" had been amended to exclude newspapers from the purview thereof. The Apex Court considered the question as to whether the definition of "goods" should condition the understanding of all other provisions of the enactment and held that, each provision would have to be considered and understood in the context in which it is used. B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J, speaking for the Court has concluded the issue as follows: "...It refers to manufactured "goods", i.e.. goods manufactured by such purchasing dealer-in this case, newspapers. If we attach the defined meaning to "goods" In the second half of section 8(3)(b), it would place the newspapers in a more unfavourable position than they were prior to the amendment of the definition in sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pression "finished products" occurring in Section 5(3) of the Act need not be controlled by the definition of "goods" contained in Section 2(xii) of the Act. It also need not be restricted to mean only products that are taxable under the Act. The insistence on any such requirement would be unwarranted going by the wording of the provision, after the amendment. In view of the above, it is ordered as follows: (i) W.A. No. 1035 of 2006 is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. Exts. P1 to P4, P9, P10 and P11 are quashed. (ii) S.T.Rev. Nos. 125 of 2009 and 126 of 2009 are allowed. The orders under revision are set aside. S.T. Rev. No. 205 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal. (iii) S.T.Rev. Nos. 125 of 2009 and 126 of 2009 are allowed. The orders under revision are set aside. S.T. Rev. No. 205 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal." 4.2 Western India Cosmetic and Health decided the mode of adjustment of deposited amount, and method of apportionment of the amount deposited by the dealer is no more res integra. Similarly, the computation of tax by the assessing authority is also interdicted and t....