Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Union Of India Vs The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 1596 of 2006
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/08/2018
Related Assessment Year : 1974-75
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Union Of India Vs The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow (Allahabad High Court)

In the present case it is an admitted fact that the revisionist disputed the liability of payment of tax and that the revisionist never admitted liability to pay any tax on the transaction in question and this fact that the revisionist is disputed its liability under the Act is not disputed by the respondent opposite party. This is also relevant to notice that the tax has been deposited by the revisionist under protest on insistence of the respondent department. The revisionist in fact has contested the matter by means of filing the writ petition for refund of tax, which was ultimately dismissed after gap of about 11 years from the date of its institution. It is clear that even the division bench has clearly indicated in its judgment that it would be open to the revisionist to agitate its claim with respect of imposition of interest under Section 8(1) before the assessing authority.

In view of aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the revisionist in fact has agitated its claim before the assessing authority by filing an application under Section 22 as such has disputed its liability from very inspection/binning. In this view of the matter, the same cannot be treated to be “admitted tax” or tax “admittedly payable” for the purpose of Section 8(1) of the Act.

I find that moreover there was a bona fide dispute raised by the revisionist regarding liability for tax thereon, thus, it cannot be said to be its admitted taxable turnover and, therefore, there is no liability for payment of interest under Section 8(1) of the Act.

This Court in the case of R.P. Chemical Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, reported in 1986 U.P.R.T.C. 157 held that where a dealer does not admit any liability for payment of tax on a particular turnover and tax is imposed under Section 3-AAAA of the Act, the turnover and the tax liability does not admitted liability under Section 8 (1) of the Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031