TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er has not deposited. The assessing authority held that the dealer was liable to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 33,291. Dealer filed first appeal against the said order which was dismissed. Then second appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the assessing authority for redecision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the dealer. It appears that the Tribunal had called for the record of the assessing authority which was not produced. The copy of the original assessment order was also not produced on account of which the Tribunal felt handicapped. 3.. The dealer feeling aggrieved has now filed this revision. It is submitted that the amount of tax was deposited by 30th August, 1986. 4.. Shri Shakeel Ahmad has submitted that the impugned order could be passed under section 21 or under section 22 only after following the procedure laid down by law. The impugned order dated 30th July, 1990 nowhere shows that any notice was served upon the dealer before passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the order should have been quashed by the Tribunal, instead of remanding the matter. It is also submitted that the rectification order could be passed wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed by the appellate authority and assessing authority are hereby quashed. [Against this decision the department filed an appeal before the Supreme Court]. R.G. Padia, Senior Advocate (S.W.A. Qadri and J.K. Bhatia, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent. [Judgment per : A.R. Lakshmanan, J.]. - This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. challenging the final order dated 16-9-1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the Trade Tax Revision No. 3 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the revision of the respondent-assessee. 2.The brief facts pertaining to the present appeal are as under : By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent and quashed the order of demand of interest on the ground that no notice in writing was issued. It was observed in the judgment that even if the dealer was liable to pay interest on the late payment of amount of tax a notice is necessary for demand of interest. In the instant case, the assessing authority passed the order on 30-7-1990 imposing interest against the respondent. The respondent filed appeal before the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... carefully perused the entire pleadings, orders passed by the authorities and the High Court and the annexure filed along with this appeal. 7.In this case, the assessment order for the assessment year 1977-78 was passed on 6-6-1986 imposing tax liability of Rs. 18,053.98 paise. The respondent deposited the tax in two instalments namely, 2,817/- on 26-6-1982 and Rs. 15,236.98 paise on 30-8-1986. The assessing authority passed another order on 30-7-1990 holding that on admitted amount of tax it was liable to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 1-5-1978 on amount of tax the assessee has not deposited. The assessing authority held that the dealer was liable to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 33,291/-. The respondent-dealer filed first appeal against the said order which was dismissed. Against that order, the second appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which remanded the matter to the assessing authority for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the dealer. Feeling aggrieved, the dealer filed a revision before the High Court. The dealer submitted that the amount of tax was deposited by 30-8-1986. 8.The liability for payment of interest arises in view of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the tax so enhanced was assessed in the order of assessment made for the first time. The amount of interest payable under sub-section (1),(1-C) (1-B) (1-BB) and (2) shall be without prejudice to any other liability or penalty that the dealer may incur under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall be added to the amount of tax and be also deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax. Where realization of any tax remained stayed by any order of(2) any Court or authority and such order of stay is subsequently vacated, the interest referred to in sub-section (1-B) shall be payable also for any period during which such order remained in operation. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),(2-A) (1-A), (1-B), (1-BB), (1-C) or (2) the Commissioner may on the application of a manufacturer within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed grant in lieu of exemption under Section 4-A moratorium for payment of the admitted tax subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The Commissioner may withdraw any such moratorium in the circumstances in which it could have withdrawn the exemption under section 4-A, but no such withdrawal shall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case. The impugned order dated 30-7-1990 nowhere states that any notice was sent to the dealer, therefore, such an order could not be sustained. Consequently, the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 21-7-1998 remanding the matter to the assessing authority. Holding so, the High Court allowed the revision and quashed the order of the Tribunal. 10.In our opinion, the order passed by the High Court is absolutely illegal. 11.In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Qureshi Crucible Center, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 495, the Commissioner of Sales Tax was the appellant. The appeal was preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the sales tax revision filed by the assessee. After referring to Section 8(1), this Court held as under : "According to this section, a dealer shall have to deposit the tax admittedly payable either within the time prescribed or by August 31, 1975 whichever is later. If he fails to do so, simple interest at the rate of 2% per mensem becomes payable. This levy of interest is by operation of law. It does not require a separate order as such by any authority. The explanati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les Tax Officer was reduced on appeal and further reduced on revision. This Court after considering sub-section (9) which has been added in Section 8 of the Act by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (3 of 1971) held that it shall not be necessary to the assessing authority to serve upon the dealer a fresh notice. Similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Firm Parshuram Rameshwar Lal v. State of U.P., (1974) 33 STC 540 (All.) which has also been referred to in this judgment. 15.In view of the above, this Court accepted the appeal filed by the Sales Tax Officer and set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee. 16.In the case of Prahlad Rai & Ors. v. Sales Tax Officer, Meerut & Ors., 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 612, this Court had an occasion to consider the payment of interest on arrears of sales tax. In this case, the assessee contended that he had admittedly paid the entire arrears of sales tax voluntarily and, therefore, they did not become defaulters and not liable to pay interest. Rejecting the said argument, this Court held that the accrual of interest is automatic and no separate notice of demand was required t....