- (1.) Raising a short but interesting point with regard to the liability of the petitioner to pay the interest on its turnover of sale of jewellery articles and bullion, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner had opted for payment of composition fee as envisaged under section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the said composition scheme after three years was turned down by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Whether petitioner having deposited the requisite amount in lieu of the tax under the scheme, can be held as defaulter in payment of admitted tax due so as to hold him liable to pay interest, is the point mooted in the writ petition.
(2.) The facts are few and are not much in dispute. The petitioner, dealing in silver and gold ornaments, and bullion, is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as also under the U.P. VAT Act. In exercise of powers conferred under section 7-D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, the State of U.P. on 8th of August, 2005 issued a compounding scheme no. Vidhi-1(3)-Sarafa-Sama.Yo.-2005-2006-977/Vyapar Kar under Section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act enabling a dealer to pay an ascertained amount in lieu of tax. On 17th of September, 2005 the Commissioner of Trade Tax issued an amendment to the said scheme which is not very relevant for the purposes of the present writ petition.
(3.) Under the said compounding scheme dated 8th of August, 2005, it was provided that a dealer opting the scheme would pay a lump-sum amount in lieu of tax. The relevant terms and conditions of the scheme will be noted in the later part of the judgment. Suffice it to say that the petitioner indisputably opted the payment of tax under the aforesaid composition scheme and deposited the prescribed amounts on various dates such as on 13th September, 2005, 14th September, 2005, 8th December, 2005 and 10th of January, 2006 in pursuance of his application dated 25th of August, 2005.;