TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he month of March 1998 in that month itself, on a letter written by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Faridabad calling upon it to do so and assuring that excess payment could be adjusted in the month of April 1998. Previously also, the petitioner used to deposit excess amount as advance tax on the request made by the department and such advance tax was adjusted in the Ist quarter of next financial year. The petitioner received three notices dated 20.10.1999 as issued by respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner had made short payment of tax amount of Rs.70,19,943/- and had claimed excess payment of Rs.72,89,684/- in the last quarter of 1997-98. The petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to complete the assessment for the prev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued another notice which was received by it on 20.04.2001. Demand for payment of interest on an amount of Rs.72,89,684/- under Section 25 (5) of the Act, 1973 was raised vide this notice. The petitioner submitted reply to the said notice alleging that the impugned demand was not sustainable. It has challenged the validity of this notice by making prayer for issuing a writ of certiorari thereby quashing the said notice (Annexure P-10) and also prayed for passing a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.2 to adjust the amount already paid from the date of accrual of payment. 3. The respondents in their written reply alleged that unless and until the excess amount deposited by the petitioner was quantified, the same could not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing the last date for the payment of tax. It is well settled proposition of law that an assessee can be directed to pay interest only where he is shown to have attempted to contravene the provisions of the Act, 1973 with the object to evade payment of rightful tax levied thereunder. In M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the considerations relevant for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Orissa Sales Tax had held that the liability to pay the penalty did not arise merely upon the proof of default in registering a dealer. Such a liability could be fastened only where the assessee was shown to have attempted to contravene the provisions of the Act, 1973 wit....