PAUL MOTOR STORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for a direction to the Tribunal to refer following questions of law arising out of order of the Tribunal dated August 27, 1992 for the assessment year 1982-83:

(2.) The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") and was engaged in the business of tyres and tubes. As a result of assessment in respect of assessment year 1982-83, an additional demand of Rs. 293 on account of tax and Rs. 98 on account of interest under Section 11D of the Act was raised, which was paid. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 11A of the Act and vide reassessment order dated April 22,1988 an additional demand of tax to the tune of Rs. 62,000 and penalty of Rs. 13,000 was raised, which was paid by the assessee. In addition to this the Revenue also claimed interest under Section 11D of the Act on the ground that the tax was held due on the date of filing of the return itself. The demand of interest was upheld by the Tribunal relying on a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of India in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, 1981 48 STC 466.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the view taken in Associated Cement Co. Ltd.'s case [1981] 48 STC 466 (SC) stands overruled by a Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court of India in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, 1994 94 STC 422. Counsel further submits that where additional demand is created, as a result of assessment/ reassessment, the interest becomes payable from the date of demand and not from the date of return, as the assessee cannot anticipate that any amount in excess of the amount paid by the assessee as per the return filed will be liable to be paid. Similar view has been expressed in Trick India Limited v. State ofHaryana, 1994 AIR(SC) 2410 , Maruti Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, 2001 2 SCR 829 and Full Bench of this Court in United Riceland Limited v. State of Haryana,1997 104 STC 362.