Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing V. Nagarathinam Ammal vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Sankari on 4 August, 1987

Chitrani Cinema vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 19 February, 1996

In Nagarathinam Ammal v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [1987] 67 STC 464 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealt with the assessability of interest on penalty and delayed payment of tax. In that case, the demand of tax was made pursuant to the original order of assessment. That demand was already complied with. Later, a further demand was raised as penalty due in respect of the same assessment year. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the demand, was dismissed. On appeal, a Division Bench held that the dealer was liable to pay penalty if he failed to pay the tax in compliance with the notice of assessment. Referring to sub-section (3) of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (as it then stood), the court held that unless there was fresh notice, there could be no liability on the part of the firm. As the appeals against the assessment orders were partly allowed, a fresh notice of demand had to be issued, so, it was only when the assessee failed to comply with the fresh notice, that he could be called a "defaulter" and before issuance of such a fresh notice, there could be no liability on the dealer for payment of penalty under the provisions of the Act and that the department was not entitled to raise the rate of penal interest relying on the amendment made in 1977. It was held that liability to pay penalty or interest was incurred with reference to the assessment year and the date of demand and default and not with reference to the assessment year and the date of demand and default and not with reference to any subsequent period. But in that case levying of penalty or making demand to pay interest itself was not upheld.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Sekar Jewellers vs The Tamilnadu Taxation Special ... on 9 October, 2002

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case V.NAGARATHINAM AMMAL VS. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SANKARI (1987) 67 STC 464. Though in that case, the facts are identical to the facts of the present case, the provision obtaining at the relevant period was totally different. The provision of Section 24(3), which is applicable to the facts of the present case is as brought out by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Special Provision and Validation) Act 1998, which is deemed to be in force from the period from 21.9.1977 to 31.10.1982 and the same is relevant for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1981-82, which are under consideration in the present case. Hence we are of the view that the said case would not in any way advance the case of the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Mahendra Pratap Singh S/O Narayan ... vs District Magistrate Raibareli & Anr. on 25 April, 2013

From perusal of the above provision of Rule 16 of Rules, 1997, it reflects that prior to issue an order for recovery of the Entertainment Tax as arrears of land revenue, the District Magistrate shall issue a notice of demand calling upon person to make the payment within a specified time. Thus, it is evident that installment of entertainment tax, if not paid within the time specified for such payment, the proprietor is liable to pay interest calculated at such rate as may be prescribed in additional to such tax or penalty or installment. Thus, it is clear that there is a liability to pay interest on belated payment of installment In Nagarathinam Ammal v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer reported in [1987] 67 STC 464, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dealt with the assessability of interest on penalty and delayed payment of tax. In that case, the demand of tax was made pursuant to the original order of assessment. That demand was already complied with. Later, a further demand was raised as penalty due in respect of the same assessment year. The writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the demand, was dismissed. On appeal, a Division Bench held that the dealer was liable to pay penalty if he failed to pay the tax in compliance with the notice of assessment. Referring to sub-section (3) of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (as it then stood), the court held that unless there was fresh notice, there could be no liability on the part of the firm. As the appeals against the assessment orders were partly allowed, a fresh notice of demand had to be issued, so, it was only when the assessee failed to comply with the fresh notice, that he could be called a "defaulter" and before issuance of such a fresh notice, there could be no liability on the dealer for payment of penalty under the provisions of the Act and that the department was not entitled to raise the rate of penal interest relying on the amendment made in 1977. It was held that liability to pay penalty or interest was incurred with reference to the assessment year and the date of demand and default and not with reference to the assessment year and the date of demand and default and not with reference to any subsequent period. But in that case levying of penalty or making demand to pay interest itself was not upheld.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R Sharma - Full Document
1