Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (8) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondents : Mr. R.Nandhakumar, Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by M/s.S.Ragaventhre, Junior Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition is filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 23.08.2022 issued by 5th respondent and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation, dated 11.10.2022 and to review the case in terms of section 110 of the Finance Act 2013. 2. Heard Mr. S.Karunakar, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.Nandhakumar, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by M/s.S.Ragaventhre, Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material documents placed on record. 3. The petitioner is running a firm carrying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sum of Rs. 15 lakhs on 26.06.2014. The petitioner has to pay the balance of Rs. 13,89,270/- on or before 30.06.2014 in order to avoid interest. Even the petitioner was not able to pay along with interest on or before 31.12.2014. But the petitioner had paid the balance amount of Rs. 13,89,270/- on 21.02.2015 and was instructed to pay the interest for the belated amount. However, the Office of the Accountant General (Audit) directed the respondents to recover the interest for the entire tax liability of Rs. 57,89,270/-. In turn the respondents directed the petitioner to pay the interest for the entire tax liability of Rs. 57,89,270/-. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved. 5. The contention of the respondents is that once the declarant violat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me is extracted hereunder: "110: Where the declarant fails to pay the tax dues, either fully or in part, as declared by him, such dues along with interest thereon shall be recovered under the provisions of Section 87 of the Chapter". The section states "fails to pay tax dues, either fully or in part, such dues along interest shall be recovered". The respondents interpret it "fully tax liability". This Court is of the considered opinion that on the comprehensive reading of the section would clearly indicate the phrase "such dues" would definitely mean the unpaid portion only. Since only the unpaid portion alone can be considered as "dues". The respondents are adding words which is not found in the section. If the interpretation o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the need to treat it as current law. "x x x x x x x In the comments that follow it is pointed out that an ongoing Act is taken to be always speaking. It is also, further, stated thus : (pp. 618-19) "In construing an ongoing Act, the interpreter is to presume that Parliament intended the Act to be applied at any future time in such a way as to give effect to the true original intention. Accordingly the interpreter is to make allowances for any relevant changes that have occurred, since the Act's passing, in law, social conditions, technology, the meaning of words, and other matters. Just as the US Constitution is regarded as 'a living Constitution', so an ongoing British Act is regarded as 'a living Act'. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e contrary view taken by the Delhi High Court is not correct." In the present case, even if two interpretations are possible then the one which is favourable to the assessee has to be preferred. Therefore, on this ground also the petitioner is entitled to relief. 8. Generally, the respondents levy interest for the unpaid portion of the tax liability. Even as per tax laws, when the portion of the tax liability is paid the respondents cannot levy interest for the entire tax liability. If the respondents are allowed to levy interest for the entire tax liability, when the portion of the tax is paid, then the same is without any authority of law. 9. Even in normal commercial parlance any person is entitled to interest for the unpaid por....