Dismissed

Mahe Beach Trading Company v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Madras HC8 Jan 2018WP/50305/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses writ petitions challenging notices demanding interest for belated tax payment. The court held the interest liability was automatic and not barred by limitation despite the time lapse, as the initial assessment was concluded only recently. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted 60 days to pay the balance. Note: Subject 'cheque-dishonour' included in origi

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is granted 60 days to pay 50% of the remaining balance interest.

Mahe Beach Trading Company Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

¶4

W.P. Nos.50305 and 50306 of 2006

¶5

Mahe Beach trading company, Palakkal, Mahe, Pondicherry, Rep. by K.M.Abdul Gafoor (deceased) Now rep. by his legal heirs 2.K.E.Rehmath 3.K.E.Noushad 4.K.E.Regina 5.K.E.Reesha P2 to P5 petitioners substituted in the place of deceased petitioner as per order dated 26.02.2010 in MP.No.1/2010 in WP.No.50305/2006 ... Petitioner in WP.No.50305/2006

¶6

Surya Service Station, Hindustan Petroleum Dealers, Paloor, Mahe, Pondicherry, Rep. by K.M.Abdul Gafoor (deceased) Now rep. by his legal heirs 2.K.E.Rehmath 3.K.E.Noushad 4.K.E.Regina 5.K.E.Reesha P2 to P5 petitioners substituted in the place of deceased petitioner as per order dated 26.02.2010 in MP.No.1/2010 in WP.No.50306/2006 ... Petitioner in WP.No.50306/2006 Vs

¶7

The Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe, Pndicherry. ... Respondent in both Wps

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

Prayer:(WP.No.50305 of 2006) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings dated 28.09.2006 in PGST No.501014/99-2000 and quash the same.

¶10

Prayer:(WP.No.50306 of 2006) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceeding dated 28.09.2006 in PGST No.501143/1999-2000 and quash the same.

¶11

Heard, Mr.Raja Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.J.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶12

2.On the last hearing i.e., 11.12.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is barred by limitation by referring to Section 18(1) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act, 1967 (in short "the PGST Act") stating that the impugned demand has been made beyond the period of five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates.

¶13

3.Recording the said submission, the learned Government Advocate was directed to get the original file in the matter and accordingly, the original file has been produced by the officer in person before this court. From the original file it is seen that the Assessment order for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 was completed only on 05.01.2005. From paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, it is seen that the petitioner did not cooperate for the assessment proceedings and filed the annual return in Form A1 only on 05.01.2005.

¶14

4.Thus, the impugned demand is not a demand for tax, but interest for the belated payment @ 2% per month. The petitioner cannot escape from the liability as this interest is automatic on delayed payment of tax. At the time when the writ petition was admitted, the petitioner was granted an interim order subject to the condition to pay 50% of the amount demanded in the impugned order, which has been complied with by the

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

petitioner. The petitioner has to, therefore, settle the remaining amount to be paid.

¶17

5.For the above reason, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed and the petitioner is granted 60 days time to pay 50% of the balance amount of interest payable in terms of the impugned notices. It goes without saying that under the provision of the PGST Act there is no provisions vested with the Assessing Officer to collect the tax in installments. It is not known as to why such indulgence has been given to the dealers or petitioners carrying on business on cash and carry basis. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
maya/sai
To
The Commercial Tax Officer,
Mahe, Pondicherry.
+1cc to Mr.Jaikanth, Advocate, S.R.No.1492
+1cc to Mr.Jaikanth, Advocate, S.R.No.1490
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader Taxes, S.R.No.1673
+1cc to the Government Pleader for Puducherry, S.R.No.1461 & 1462
W.P.Nos.50305 and 50306 of 2006
NRK(CO)
CS/08/02/18

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mahe Beach Trading Company v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahe Beach Trading Company v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri P. Ajeeth, Vs the Commissioner of Income

Smt.Mamtha, Vs the Commissioner of Incometax-

Shri Mohammed Omar Shaik Vs Shri Rajan Choudry

M/s.Sivam Agencies, Vs Deputy Commercial Tax

Arvind Suriya Ceramics Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Creative Trading Company, Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)