LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-40

NESTLE INDIA LIMITED Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), CHENNAI

Decided On November 03, 2020
NESTLE INDIA LIMITED Appellant
V/S
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT), CHENNAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, a common order dated 09.08.2005 was passed by the third Respondent in four revision petitions affirming separate orders dated 20.01.2005 of the second Respondent, which, in turn, affirmed separate orders dated 08.09.2004 of the first Respondent levying interest on the Petitioner under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the TNGST Act) or under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act read with Section 9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the belated payment of tax. In these writ petitions, the aforesaid orders are challenged on the same grounds; therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Originally, monthly sales tax returns were to be filed by all dealers on or before the 20 th of the succeeding calendar month along with the tax due and payable as per the self-assessment of the dealer. By an amendment to Rule 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules (the TNGST Rules), the date of filing returns was advanced for dealers with a taxable turnover of Rs.200 crore or more in the previous financial year. As a result, such dealers were directed to file their monthly returns on or before the 12 th of the succeeding calendar month. The Petitioner admittedly failed to submit the returns for the relevant periods on or before the 12 th of the succeeding calendar month. However, the returns for the relevant period were filed on or before the 20 th of the succeeding calendar month.

(3.) By the impugned order of the third Respondent dated 09.08.2005, the third Respondent held that the Petitioner is liable to pay interest under Section 24(3) of the TNGST Act or under Section 24(3) read with Section 9(2 A) of the CST Act, as the case may be, which provide for the levy of interest if taxes are paid belatedly. On that basis, the orders of the second Respondent were confirmed by the third Respondent. The present writ petitions were filed in these facts and circumstances.