CEAT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated August 20, 1993 [See page 24 supra] passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 15632 of 1993. As the learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition, the petitioner therein has come up in appeal.

(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the notice dated July 22, 1993, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Central Assessment Circle III, demanding a penalty of Rs. 7, 720 from the petitioner on the ground that the tax was due on November 20, 1992, whereas it was paid on November 24, 1992; as such there was a delay of three days. Hence, the penalty of Rs. 7, 720 was demanded as per sub-section(3) of section24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The learned single Judge has held that as the petitioner had obtained permission and adopted the mode of self-assessment, it was required to file and pay the tax due for the month of October, 1992, on or before November 20, 1992, as per rule 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), which is in accordance with section24(3) of the Act.

(3.) ON the contrary, it is contended by learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) that sub-section(2) of section 13 of the Act specifically provides the last date for filing the return and the date on which the tax becomes due, and rule 18(2) of the Rules prescribes such a date. It is submitted that as per sub-rule (2) of rule 18, the return for the previous month has to be filed on or before the 20th of the succeeding month. Hence, tax has to be paid on or before the date filing the return and a receipt for having paid the tax has also to be enclosed. Therefore, it is submitted that it is open to the dealer to pay the tax on any date on or before the 20th of the succeeding month and file the return on any one of the dates from 1st to 20th of succeeding month. As in the instant case, it is submitted that the return has been filed on November 24, 1992, along with the payment of tax on that date, there is undoubtedly a delay of three days in the payment of sales tax. Hence, the respondents are justified in imposing the penalty as per sub-section (3) of section 24 read with sub-section (5) of section 12.