TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Total 7 1 8 Rs. 7,11,414/- 2. Jan 2011 Rs. 12,00,000/- 20.02.2010 28.2.2017 3 3 8 Rs. 5,97,181/- 3 9 - Rs. 10,95,000/- Total 7 0 8 Rs. 16,92,181/- 3. Feb 2011 Rs. 9,00,000/- 20.03.2010 28.02.2017 3 2 8 Rs. 4,36,480/- 3 9 - Rs. 8,21,250/- Total 6 11 8 Rs. 12,57,730/- 4. March 2011 Rs. 8,00,000/- 20.04.2010 28.02.2017 3 1 8 Rs. 3,77,844/- 3 9 - Rs. 7,30,001/- Total 6 10 8 Rs. 11,07,845/- Grand Total : Rs. 47,69,170/- 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner filed returns for the Assessment Years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011. The earlier assessment order was passed for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 on 15.06.2012. Thereafter, two assessment orders dated 25.02.2014 came to be passed for the respective Assessment Years after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hase tax and after adjusting the purchase tax already paid the differential amount of Rs. 26,66,277/- and Rs. 33,99,999/- was demanded from the petitioner. Apart from the above, the petitioner was also levied with the penalty Rs. 6,28,062/- and Rs. 2,87,13,538/- under Section 27(4) of TNVAT, 2006, for the respective Assessment Years. These assessment orders were also subjected to challenge in W.P.Nos.2732 to 2737 of 2017. In these above writ petitions, the prayer of the petitioner was for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent dated 29.12.2016 received on 04.01.2017 in TIN:33532183658/2008-09 to 2013-14 and to quash the same. 6. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 07.11.2019 in W.P.Nos.2732 to 2737 of 2017 accepted the contention of the petitioner as far as the imposition of penalty under Section 27(4) of the TNVAT, 2006 with the following observation: "12. The quantification of such penalty hinges upon the tax determined to be due by the assessee. A demand of tax due to the revenue by an assessee is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ground that no notice waas served. In this view, the impugned judgment would normally be unsustainable. However, as already noticed, the respondent-assessee has specifically urged that the subsequent proceedings to the assessment is barred by limitation and that even though the order was passed onn 6.6.1986 imposing tax liability etc., the assessing authority had passed another order only on 30.07.1990 holding that on admitted amount of tax, the assessee was liable to pay interest at 24% p.a from 1.5.1978 and, therefore, on the question of delay in demanding interest, the demand has to be set aside. This argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent merits acceptance. In this case, the assessment relates to the assessment years 1977-78. The respondent furnished his return to the assessing authority and the assessing authority passed an assessment order against the respondent and in accordance with the assessment order, the assessee has deposited the entire amount of tax amounting to Rs. 15,236.98 paise on 3.8.1986 and Rs. 2,817/- on 26.6.1982. However, on 30.7.1990, the assessing authority passed an order imposing interest against the respondent. Thus the dema....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion prescribed for demand of duty under Section 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years. But that would be applicable only in case of misstatement, fraud, concealment etc., which is not the case here. As such, in the present case, the period of limitation for the demand for duty would be one year. By the same logic, the period of limitation for demand of interest thereon would be one year. Inasmuch as the demand for interest has been mad beyond a period of one year, the demand would be clearly hit by the principle of limitation as laid down by the Supreme Court. Even if, we take the letter dated 25.10.2004 as the first demand of interest, although that letter was in respect of a demand for differential duty, the demand would still be beyond a period of three years." 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner Vs.Emco Ltd - 2015 (325) E.L.T. A104, wherein the decision of the Tribunal was questioned. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....already initiated consequent to verification of third party data or MIS, etc., to the selected tax payers prior to 31st day of October of the succeeding years viz., 2008-09 to 2014-15, no summons or notice need to be issued to the tax payers requiring to produce books of accounts for detailed check under Section 22(3) of TNVAT Act, 2006. E) Where, no action in the form of issue of Pre-assessment notice, Pre-revision notice or Best Judgment Notices has been initiated in any form for any reason other than the listed above, against the selected tax payers prior to 31st day of October of the succeeding years viz., 2008-09 to 2014-15, no summons or notice need to be issued to the tax payers requiring them to produce books of accounts for detailed check under Section 22(3) of TNVAT Act, 2006. F) Where, the assessment has been initiated on the selected list of tax payers for any reasons thereof and no subsequent action in the form of issue of Pre-assessment notices, Pre-revision Notices or Best Judgment Notices has been taken within a period of 6 years from the said date of assessment, then no summons or notice need to be issue to the said tax payers requiring them to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons for payment of interest will also come into play, and the department is entitled to recover interest as provided under section 24(3). 16. Finally, the learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the interest payable on account of delayed payment of tax was compensatory in nature and not penal in nature and therefore there is no scope for any concession under the schemes of enhancement. It is submitted that there is no limitation for recovery of interest on delayed payment of tax. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sakthi Sugars Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, reported in (1985) 59 STC 52. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the requirements of maintaining proper records in terms of Rule 12 of TNVAT, Act 2006 was not followed by the petitioner and therefore there was no excuse for not paying interest. 18. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned notice and the assessment order and re-assessment order have been passed in this case and also perused the order passed by this Court and also the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest under this Act. 23. A reading of Sub Clause 3 to Section 42 of the Act also makes it clear that on any amount remaining unpaid after the date specified for its payment as referred to in subsection (1) or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay, in addition to the amount due, interest at 2% per month of such amount for the entire period of default. The specified date for making payment of tax is in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules. 24. Thus, the challenge by the impugned Notices are without any merits. If there is a failure to tax in time, the dealers are required to pay interest as payment of Interest is consequential. Incidentally, same issue came up for consideration in the case of Sri Sakthi Murugan Tex Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Perundurai, Erode District in W.P.No.21878 of 2021 dated 16.02.2022, in the above case observed and held as follows: "10. The question for determination is whether the petitioner can be absolved from payment of interest on the delayed payment of differential tax paid for the period from the date on which the tax was originally to be paid and the actual date of payment of the differenti....