- (1.) The short issue involved in all these 16 Tax Revisions is as to whether the liability of interest for late payment of tax in the facts of these cases would be attracted from the date the tax was payable or from the date the writ petitions filed by the assessee alongwith bunch of similar writ petitions was dismissed by the High Court.
(2.) Learned counsel for the department with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company and Another Vs The Commercial Tax Commissioner and others, 1997 AIR(SC) 2920 submitted that from the facts on record it is established that the petitioner had taken his chance by litigating and he was successful in obtaining an interim order during the pendency of the writ petition. Now when his writ petition has been dismissed under the judgment of the High Court dated 17.01.1996, it is to be presumed that there was no interim order at any point of time in favour of the assessee and even otherwise, any benefits drawn by the assessee because of the interim order must be eased out and must be restored as if there was no interim order in favour of the assessee. He submits that the controversy stands settled under the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Jute Manufacturing Company referred to above against the assessee.
(3.) Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee submitted before this Court that large number of writ petitions had been filed before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the Notification dated 21.05.1994. The very competence of the State to levy tax @ 2 % on purchase of paddy even on the holders of recognition certificate was under challenge. The assessee was granted an interim stay order. Therefore, the assessee had a bonafide to believe that he is not liable to pay tax on the paddy purchased by him, being a holder of recognition certificate in the relevant year and his bonafide belief was strong thereof by the interim order of the High Court. He explains that under the Trade Tax Act, it is only the admitted amount of the tax, which is required to be deposited up to the date of filing of the return. Since the assessee did not admit his liability in respect of the tax on paddy purchased by him in terms of the Notification dated 21.05.1994, it cannot be said that he had not paid the admitted amount. It is only from the date when the assessment order was issued fixing his liability after dismissal of the writ petition that he can be asked to pay interest on the tax, so determined. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal according to Sri Ashok Kumar does not warrant any interference. In support of his case he refers to the judgment of Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd Vs The Commercial Taxes Officer,1994 UPTC 893, specially to paragraphs 16 & 17 as well as to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of M/s Annapurna Biscuit Company Vs State and Others,1980 UPTC 1320and the judgments of the Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax Vs M/s Mentha and Allied Products, Rampur,1997 UPTC 1118.;