V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, raising the following three questions of law : (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest is leviable in respect of order passed under section 17 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable for payment of interest under section 11-B in case the tax is not deposited within the time allowed under section 7-A ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the liability for payment of tax is automatic and not dependent on any order of assessment or order of rectification ? Brief facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee under section 10 was framed and the interest due in accordance with the provisions of section 11-B was levied. Subsequently, the assessing authority found that there is a mistake in framing the assessment and, therefore, passed an order of rectification under section 17 and further liability of tax was created. This order was passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle III on July 25, 1983. THE assessing authority thereafter passed another order on July 24, 1985, levying interest for delay in payment of demand, which was created by the said order under section 17. An appeal was filed against this order, which was dismissed. In the second appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, it was held that the provisions of section 11-B were inserted by Act of 3 of 1990, which came into force with effect from May 13, 1989. THE Tribunal was of the view that because there was no specific provision in the explanation with regard to quantification to tax liability under section 11-B of the Act, and, therefore, interest could not be levied if the tax has been quantified under section 17.
(2.) I have considered over the matter. In the present case, liability of interest could be charged if a specific provision creating the liability is made in the Act. That provision for the first time came into existence after insertion of "section 17" with the explanation by Act No. 3 of 1990. The liability cannot be created without any specific charge. This Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Nalwaya Minerals & Motor Parts [1990] 79 STC 113; (1989) 30 STL 161 has held that interest liability cannot be created if tax has been quantified under section 12 before the amendment specially inserting the word "section 12". On the same analogy the provisions of section 11-B read with its explanation have restricted the scope of section 11-B only to those matters where quantification has been done and the section in which it is quantified. If the quantification is under any other section than those specified in section 11-B, then interest could not be charged. Looking to this interpretation of this provision, I am of the view that the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the interest under section 11-B was not chargeable in respect of the proceedings of quantification of tax which were under section 17 of the Act. The revision petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;