Case Law Details
MRF Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes (Delhi High Court)
Pre-deposit sums which the assessee is compelled to pay to seek recourse to an appellate remedy, do not necessarily bear the stamp or character of tax, especially when it succeeds on the particular plea. That being the case, the insistence upon a procedural step, i.e. filing of a form which is purely for the purpose of administrative convenience cannot in any manner fix the period or periods of limitation when the amounts became due on the question of interest. The fact that the amounts were due and payable from the date the appeal was allowed is not in dispute. In these circumstances, the postponement of the period from when interest became calculable is in-comprehensive and illogical. For these reasons the petitioner is entitled to interest calculable from the date when its appeal was allowed by this Court by order dated 14.05.2015. The respondents shall ensure that the amounts are processed and credited to the petitioner’s account within four weeks. The petition is allowed in these terms.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner succeeded partly in an appeal, which resulted in its claim for exclusion of certain amounts in its taxable turnover. Its appeal was allowed by a detailed judgment and order of this Court on 14.05.2015 – MRF v. Commissioner of T&T (Sales Tax Appeal Nos. 1 & 2/2015, decided on 14.05.2015). The relevant extract of that decision accepting the petitioner’s plea is as follows:
“33. On facts, the Revenue does not refute that in the scheme of turnover discount applied by the assessee here each of its dealers would be entitled to 1% rebate in the sale price irrespective of any particular sales target. It makes no difference, as held in the case of Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (supra), that the discount was calculated at quarterly basis and accorded through “credit notes”. The credit notes, issued pursuant to the understanding indicated in the sale invoices declaring upfront the entitlement of the purchaser for such trade discount, would get effectuated by suitable adjustment in the payment of the sales price collected in their wake. The net effect apparently has been of the price being correspondingly varied, the amount received or receivable, thus, not being inclusive of the discount allowed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
