Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Agrawal Trading Company - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference No. 730 of 1969
Judge
Reported in[1971]27STC390(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentAgrawal Trading Company
Advocates:Standing Counsel
Excerpt:
- .....at the rate of 18 per cent. in accordance with section 8(1-a) of the act. it appears that the assessee paid the tax demanded but disputed his liability to pay the interest. his objection in that regard was rejected by the sales tax officer but a revision application filed by him found favour with the additional judge (revisions) sales tax. at the instance of the commissioner of sales tax this reference has now been made.3. no one appears for the assessee although notice of this reference has been served upon him. the additional judge (revisions) proceeded on, the view that it was necessary that a demand for payment of the interest under section 8(1-a) should be made upon the assessee and that in any event it should be mentioned in the notice of demand relating to the tax assessed.....
Judgment:

1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax has referred the following question:--

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was liable to pay interest or not?

2. The assessee was assessed to tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act by an assessment order dated 20th November, 1964, for the assessment year 1958-59 and a notice of demand was served, along with the copy of the assessment order, on the assessee prescribing a period of 30 days for the payment of the tax assessed. The assessee did not file any appeal or revision application. The order became final. As the petitioner did not pay the tax assessed within the period provided in the notice of demand proceedings for the recovery of the tax were taken and the Collector proceeded to recover the tax as an arrear of land revenue. As the tax had not been paid for more than six months after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice of demand a direction was also sent to the Collector that the assessee should be required to pay interest at the rate of 18 per cent. in accordance with Section 8(1-A) of the Act. It appears that the assessee paid the tax demanded but disputed his liability to pay the interest. His objection in that regard was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer but a revision application filed by him found favour with the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax this reference has now been made.

3. No one appears for the assessee although notice of this reference has been served upon him. The Additional Judge (Revisions) proceeded on, the view that it was necessary that a demand for payment of the interest under Section 8(1-A) should be made upon the assessee and that in any event it should be mentioned in the notice of demand relating to the tax assessed that in case the tax was not paid within time interest would become payable at the rate of 18 per cent. in terms of Section 8(1-A). Now, a Full Bench of this court has held in Haji Lal Mohammad Bidi Works v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1970 All. 330 (FB) that in order to recover interest under Section 8(1-A), U.P. Sales Tax Act, it is not necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to make an assessment order in respect of such interest. Following the view taken by the Full Bench in that case we must hold that it was not necessary for a notice of demand to be issued calling for payment of the interest under Section 8(1-A). We are also of the opinion that it was not necessary that the notice of demand in respect of the tax assessed should contain the warning that in case the tax assessed was not paid the assessee would become liable to pay interest under Section 8(1-A). The interest payable under Section 8(1-A), as the Full Bench has said in the aforesaid case, commences to run automatically as soon as the conditions set out in the provision are fulfilled. It is not necessary that any notice should be sent to the assessee warning him to pay the tax assessed within time otherwise it would become liable to pay interest under Section 8(1-A). No such warning is contemplated by the statute and, in our opinion, it is wholly unnecessary. Upon this we would answer the question by saying that the assessee was liable to pay interest.

4. As the assessee has chosen not to appear in this reference, we make no order as to costs. The fee of the learned counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax is assessed at Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //