Allahabad High Court
Shree Gopal Fuels vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. ... on 5 January, 2023
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 10
1. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1125 of 2009
Revisionist :- Shree Gopal Fuels
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kunwar Saksena,Aloke Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Along with
2. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1122 of 2009
Revisionist :- Shree Gopal Fuels
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kunwar Saksena,Aloke Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
And
3. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1123 of 2009
Revisionist :- Shree Gopal Fuels
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kunwar Saksena,Aloke Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
And
4. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1124 of 2009
Revisionist :- Shree Gopal Fuels
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kunwar Saksena,Aloke Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
And
5. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1126 of 2009
Revisionist :- Shree Gopal Fuels
Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kunwar Saksena,Aloke Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.C. Tripathi as well as Shri R.S.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. These connected five revisions arise out of common order of the Tribunal dated 18.07.2009. Hence, all the revisions are heard together and are being decided by common order.
3. The dispute in these revisions relates to the assessment year 2000-2001, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-2005. The Assessee-revisionist before this Court is a registered dealer registered with the U.P. Trade Tax Department. He is in the business of selling coal briquettes. Earlier the Assessee used to purchase coal from which coal briquettes were manufactured. The admitted tax on the coal was deposited by the Assessee.
4. The dispute arose as to deposit of tax on the manufacture of coal briquettes. The matter was contested by the Assessee and in one of the matters of another dealer, the matter regarding payment of tax on manufacture of coal briquettes from locally purchased coal travelled up to the Hon'ble Apex Cort and the controversy was set at rest in the matter of Sonebhadra Fuel Vs. State of U.P. 2007 UPTC, 628 (SC).
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists-Assessee submitted that the levy of interest under Section 8(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short 'Act of 1948') by the Assessing Authority at the rate of 24% was not justified, as after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the year 2006 in the matter of Sonebhadra Fuel (supra). The entire disputed amount of tax was deposited. According to him, no case for interest arose as Section 8(1) of the Act of 1948 is clear to the extent that interest was chargeable on the delayed payment of tax in case of admitted amount of tax. He has also relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, 1994 UPTC 893.
6. Sri Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State defended the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that the Assessing Authority was correct in passing the order for payment of interest as the Assessee has deposited the amount of tax which was payable on the manufacture of coal briquettes from coal. After the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and thus in view of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1948, the interest was to be paid.
7. I have heard respective counsels and perused the materials on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the matter relating to manufacture of coal briquettes from coal have travelled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the controversy was set at rest in the matter of Sonebhadra Fuel (supra). The Apex Court had held that the dealer was liable to pay tax on the manufacture of coal briquettes from coal.
9. It was only after the decision in the year 2006, the Assessee had deposited the entire disputed amount of tax with the Department.
10. The Tribunal while recording the finding had admitted to the fact that the assessee had deposited the tax on the purchase of coal and subsequent to the decision of the Apex Court, the entire disputed amount of tax on the manufacture of coal briquettes was deposited by the Assessee.
11. Now the question which arises for consideration is that, whether the Assessee is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment of tax on the manufacture of coal briquettes.
12. From the reading of Section 8(1) of the Act of 1948, it is clear that the word 'admitted tax liability' has been used by the legislature. Moreover, the explanation to the said charging Section also provides that tax, admittedly, payable means the tax which is payable under this Act on the turnover of sales or, as the case may be, the turnover of purchases, or of both, as disclosed in the accounts maintained by the dealer, or admitted by him in any return or proceeding under the Act of 1948.
13. It was specific case of the Assessee that there was a dispute as to the deposit of tax on the manufacture of coal briquettes from coal, which was purchased locally. After the matter having been settled by the Apex Court, the dealer had deposited the entire amount of tax. Thus, the liability of payment of interest under Section 8(1) of Act of 1948 does not arise as the interest is only chargeable where there is an admitted amount of liability. In the present case, the Assessee had throughout disputed the liability of tax on coal briquettes and it was only after the settlement of dispute by the Apex Court that the entire tax was deposited. Thus, it can safely be said that the dealer did not deliberately withheld the admitted tax liability and thus payment of interest will not arise.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the finding recorded by the Tribunal to the extent of payment of interest upholding the order passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 8(1) of Act of 1948 does not hold ground and the dealer is not liable to pay any interest on the tax which has been deposited by him pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sonebhadra Fuel (supra).
15. In view of said fact, the order passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside. All the revisions stand allowed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2023
Kushal
