LAWS(ALL)-1981-8-49

KARSANDAS Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On August 17, 1981
KARSANDAS, BROTHERS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1974-75 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act on 3rd October, 1978, and an amount of Rs. 88,116.52 was determined as tax payable by the Sales Tax Officer (5), Kanpur, by order dated 3rd October, 1978. Subsequent thereto the Sales Tax Officer took proceedings for imposition of interest under Section 8(1) of the Act. He found that an amount of Rs. 7,063.66 was deposited by the assessee on 18th September, 1978, and an amount of Rs. 17,254.92 was deposited on 23rd November, 1978. According to the Sales Tax Officer the last date for payment of the tax for the assessment year in question was 30th May, 1975, and as such the assessee was liable to pay interest as from 1st June, 1975, up to 30th September, 1978, at the rate of 3 per cent on the amount of Rs. 7,063.66 and at the same rate on Rs. 17,254.92 from 1st June, 1975, to 30th November, 1978. The total amount of interest payable by the assessee was worked out at Rs. 20,145.05. The assessee's contention that the tax had not been deposited as it was disputed, was not accepted, as the Sales Tax Officer found that the assessee had by an application dated 18th November, 1978, admitted the amount of assessed tax. The assessee in the present petition has challenged the vires of Section 8(1) of the Act. It is asserted that Section 8(1) offends article 14 of the Constitution, as it is in conflict with Section 8(1-B) of the Act, and discriminates against an assessee by depriving him of the extended period of limitation for paying the tax given by Section 8(1-B).

(2.) The vires of Section 9(1) was also challenged in the petition under article 19(1)(f) and article 31(1) of the Constitution, but no arguments in support of these grounds were addressed to us.

(3.) Thus we are left with the question as to whether Section 8(1) offends article 14 of the Constitution, in view of Section 8(1-B) of the Act. In order to consider this contention, it is necessary to extract Sections 8(1) and 8(1-B) as they stood in the relevant year :