B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the asst. yrs. 1986-87 and 1987-88 referred the following question of law under S. 256(1) of the Act for the opinion of the High Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable if the same is paid within the time allowed under the Sales-tax Act ?"
(2.) THE material facts on the basis of which the above question of law is to be decided are similar to those in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992, CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj decided on 27th March, 1995 [reported at (1995) 128 CTR (Raj) 325]. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court is identical with the question which was referred in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992. While answering the reference in DB IT Ref. No. 9 of 1992 CIT vs. Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) this Court held as under : "The Tribunal was justified in directing that the amount of unpaid Sales-tax liabilities to the last date of previous year could not be disallowed if it is found to have been paid subsequently, within the time allowed under the relevant Sales-tax Act. The proviso to S. 43B for that purpose is to be interpreted as clarificatory and applicable to the assessment years from 1984-85 to 1987-88." For the reasons given in DB IT Ref. No. 9/92 CIT vs. M/s Achaldass Dhanraj (supra) decided on 27th March, 1995, the question referred is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and it is held that the unpaid sales-tax liability is not disallowable if the same is paid within the time allowed under the Sales-tax Act.;