Skip to content


The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.T.C. Sanghvi and Co. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberTax Case Nos. 1952 to 1956 of 1984 (Revision Nos. 483 to 487 of 1984 respectively)
Judge
Reported in[1987]66STC69(Mad)
ActsTamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 24(3)
AppellantThe State of Tamil Nadu
RespondentP.T.C. Sanghvi and Co. and ors.
Advocates:K.S. Bakthavatsalam, Additional Government Pleader (CT)
Cases Referred(Khivraj Motors Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer
Excerpt:
- .....to the assessing authority even if there is a delay of a few days, that being a part of the month, penalty could be levied for the whole month. both the appellate assistant commissioner and the tribunal have held that the penalty could be levied for the actual number of days and not taking into account the month as the basis. the said decision of the tribunal has been challenged by the revenue on the ground that the tribunal's view is contrary to the statutory provisions under section 12(5)(ii) of the act, which enables the authorities to proceed to levy the penalty on the basis of month or part thereof. 2. we find that the identical words 'for each month or part thereof' occurring in section 24(3) came up for consideration before this court in w.a. no. 10 of 1982 (khivraj motors.....
Judgment:

Ramanujam, J.

1. In these tax revision cases filed by the State the common question that arises is as to the scope and ambit of section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In each of these cases the assessee has submitted the returns belatedly for the year 1980-81 and the assessing officer has chosen to levy penalty under section 12(5)(ii) not for the actual period of delay but levied the penalty taking into account the expression 'for the month or part thereof' occurring in section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. According to the assessing authority even if there is a delay of a few days, that being a part of the month, penalty could be levied for the whole month. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have held that the penalty could be levied for the actual number of days and not taking into account the month as the basis. The said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the Tribunal's view is contrary to the statutory provisions under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act, which enables the authorities to proceed to levy the penalty on the basis of month or part thereof.

2. We find that the identical words 'for each month or part thereof' occurring in section 24(3) came up for consideration before this Court in W.A. No. 10 of 1982 (Khivraj Motors Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 59 STC 52 and batch and this Court held that notwithstanding the use of the said expression in section 24(3) penalty could be levied by the authorities only on the basis of the actual number of days of delay. That decision rendered in connection with section 24(3) squarely applies to the facts of this case which involves the inter-pretation of the same words occurring in section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal's view seems to be in accord with the view taken by this Court in W.A. No. 10 of 1982 (Khivraj Motors Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 59 STC 52 which considered the identical expression 'for each month or part thereof'. We are not therefore inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in this case. The tax cases are therefore dismissed.

3. Petition dismissed.


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