Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Gannon Daunkerley & Co. & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 17 November, 1992
6. In the case of the assessee non-petitioner, the assessment order for the period commencing from 1.4.1992 to 31.3.1993 was passed on 4.1.1994, i.e. after the Notification dated 19.3.1994. The situation gives rise to position that when the sale was effected, the old Sub-section (3) which was in force and, therefore, under that old Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act of 1954, the assessee was liable to pay the tax in time and in default and delayed payment, the assessee was liable to pay the interest over the tax amount under Section 11B (2) the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 154. No tax could have been recovered from the assessee by the department after the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court by the judgment delivered in the case of Gannon Dunkerley & Co. and Ors. (supra) till the new Sub-section (3) under Section 5 was inserted by the Notification dated 19.3.1994. Meaning thereby, from 17.11.1992 to 19.3.1994, the assessee-respondent was not liable to pay even tax nor could have been charged with interest over the tax and obviously the revenue could not have demanded or recovered even the tax or the interest from the assessee in between 17.11.1992 to 19.3.1994 despite the fact that sale was effected when old Sub-section (3) of Section 5 was in force and before Sub-section (3) of Section 5 was declared void by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no action was taken by the department to recover the tax or interest from the assessee. After Sub-section (3) of Section 5 was declared void, naturally the department could not have demanded the tax and there was no liability of the assessee to pay the tax so as to have any liability to pay interest in case of delay in payment of tax.
Section 2 in The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
The Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994
1