Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 1 of 1 (0.23 seconds)

E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 8 October, 2001

In support of the contention that Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act does not apply, Mr.Prasad relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EID Parry (India) Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (2005) 141 STC 12 (EID Parry). By drawing reference to paragraph 5 of the said judgment, he submitted that the question that arose for consideration in that case was whether interest could be charged under Section 24(3) on the price fixed under Clause 5-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (the Sugarcane Order) and/or on the advance paid along with the monthly return. Upon considering the said question, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the price of sugar cannot be decided at least till the end of the sugar year. Consequently, the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 of 23 W.P. Nos.34716 to 34719 of 2005 monthly return filed without showing the price fixed under Clause 5 A of the Sugarcane Order would be neither incorrect nor incomplete. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that self-assessment tax is payable only when the returns are filed and not prior to such date. On the facts of that case, the tax was paid along with the returns and prior to assessment. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that interest was not payable as per Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 39 - R J Babu - Full Document
1