Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)
Nestle India Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner (Ct) on 3 November, 2020 cites

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 6 October, 1994

The very same Division Bench while construing the very provision i.e. Section 13(2) and Rule 18 of the TNGST Act and Rules respectively has held that the liability to pay interest under Section 24(3) is automatic and absolute from the date on which it becomes due and the question of bona fide on the part of the dealer or the dealer voluntarily filing a revised return after the due date showing the actual turnover is not at all relevant for deciding the liability of defaulting dealer to pay interest under Section 24(3) of the Act in the case of GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IV AND OTHERS reported in (1995) 97 STC 44."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Indian Commerce And Industries Co. Pvt. ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer, The ... on 25 November, 2002

16. When applied to the facts of these cases, the last date prescribed was the 12th of the succeeding calendar month, whereas the actual date of filing of the return was on various dates between the 13th and http://www.judis.nic.in 14 of 23 W.P. Nos.34716 to 34719 of 2005 20th. In E.I.D. Parry, the dealer was a producer of sugar which filed its returns within the period prescribed and paid tax on the basis of the minimum price of sugar and the taxable turnover arrived at on such basis and disclosed in such returns. Because sugar is a controlled commodity, price fixation was done subsequently based on a formula prescribed in the Sugarcane Order. The dealer paid tax on the difference between the minimum price and the subsequently determined price by filing revised returns subsequently but the tax department imposed interest on the belated payment of tax on such differential amount. In that factual context, the Supreme Court concluded that tax is required to be paid, under Section 13(2), on the basis of returns and since this was done, interest could not be imposed under Section 24(3) without an assessment by the tax authorities. In our view, this judgment does not advance the cause of the Petitioner. In the case at hand, both the filing of the return and the payment of tax, as per the said return, were after the prescribed date, namely, the 12th of the succeeding calendar month. The question as to whether interest would be payable if a return is filed without paying the tax due, as per Section 13(2), was considered in Indian Commerce and Industries Co. Pvt. Limited and Ors. v. The Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. [2003] 129 STC http://www.judis.nic.in 15 of 23 W.P. Nos.34716 to 34719 of 2005 509=MANU/TN/2201/2002 (Indian Commerce and Industries), wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that interest is payable under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act without a notice of demand if the return is filed without enclosing proof of payment of tax.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 13 - K R Pandian - Full Document

H.L. Mehra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 1974

18. Once Section 24(3-A) is held to be applicable, the challenge to the impugned orders is not sustainable and these orders are not liable to be interfered with except to the limited extent of holding that the relevant provision in these cases is Section 24(3-A) and not Section 24(3). In this regard, the settled position is that an order is not vitiated merely because a wrong provision of law is cited therein provided the relevant statute contains an appropriate provision for such purpose. It is sufficient, in this http://www.judis.nic.in 20 of 23 W.P. Nos.34716 to 34719 of 2005 regard, to draw reference to H.L. Mehra v. Union of India (1974) 4 SCC 396, where it was held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 18 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next