Judgment sc-2001-2-829-834

MARUT! WIRE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. A " S.T.O., !st CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AND ORS.

MARCH 27, 2001

B

Sales Tax:

Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963--Section 23(3)-Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963-Rule 27(7-A)-Iiability of sales tax-Failure to file return of turnover-Held, assessee liable for other consequences but not penal c interest under Section 23(3).

The appellant entered into an agreement with Mis. Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd., to supply imported inedible tallow to their factory at Ernakulam. The tallow was imported at the Cochin Port and delivered to the buyer. The appellant did not file a return of the turnover relating to the transaction. The D Respondent finalised the assessment and raised a demand of sales tax where· after the tax was paid. The Respondent then raised demand for payment of penal interest under sob-section (3) of Section 23 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 for the period between 1983 and 1985. This demand was impugned hy the Appellant before the High Court. A Single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the said demand. The Respondent preferred a writ appeal which was allowed.

The appellant contended that there was no order of assessment nor a return of turnover filed by way of self assessment in which case it should have been accompanied by proof of payment of tax as per self assessment and, therefore, it was not required to pay tax unless and until a demand based on an order of assessment was raised againstit; that the scheme of the Act as it stood at the relevant time contemplates a different penal action against a default, i.e. penalty uuder Section 45A of the Act for failure to submit the return of turnover which penalty can be as high as twice the amount of sales tax payable hut liability to pay penal interest cannot be cast on the assessee for such failure when the Act does not speci(tcally provide for levy of penal interest for failure to file return of turnover. The respondent contended that an assessee held liable to payment of sales tax and filing a return of turnover, cannot be placed on a higher H • 829

p. 830 Copy page pinpoint

A pedestal than an assessee w:ho files a return and, therefore, a reasonable construction to be placed on sub-section (3) of Section 23 would be that an assessee not filing a return of turnover should be held liable to pay penal interest with effect from a date on which he should have filed a return of turnover accompanied by payment of tax even if such return was not actually filed. B Allowing the Appeal, the Court

CIVIL APPELLXI'E JURISDICTION·: Civil Appeal No. 3009 of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.6.98 of the Kerala High Court F in W.A. No. 886/94 O.P. No. 4095 of 1996.

G.C. Sharma, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, J. Kathuria and R.K. Raghavan for ~ the Appellant.

G G. Prakash for the Respondents.

The Judgment of ihe Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. Whether the appellant, an assessee, is liable to pay any penal interest on the assessed tax under Section 23(3) of the Kerala H General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short), from the date

MARUTI WIRE INDUSTRIES CTD.v. S.T.O. !ST CIRCLE. MATIANCHERRY [R.C. LAHOTI, I.] 831 when return was due though neither a return was furnished nor any tax paid A on self-assessment basis, is the question arising for decision in this appeal.

Briefly stated the relevant facts are as follows. In April, 1983 the appellant, stationed in Patna, entered into an agreement with Mis. Tata Oil. Mills Co. Ltd. to supply imported inedible tallow to their factory at Emakularn. Accordingly, the tallow was imported at the Cochin Port and delivered to the ,. B buyer. The appellant did not file a return of the turnover relating to the above- · said transaction. The Sales Tax Officer finalised the assessment on 10.10.1984 and served the appellant on 4.3.1985 with notice raising a demand of sales tax whereafter the tax was paid. The appellant was then served with two notices raising demand for payment of Rs. l,85,882.58p. as penal interest c under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act for the period 20.5.1983 (the date by which the return of tum-over was due to be filed accompanied by proof of payment of the tax due as per return) to 25.2.1985. This demand was impugned by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Emakularn. A learned single Judge allowed the petition and quashed the said demand. The State of Kerala preferred a writ appeal which has been allowed D and the judgment of the learned single Judge has been set aside. The aggrieved appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.

Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act reads as under:-

"(3) If the tax or any other amount assessed or due under this E Act is not paid by any dealer or other person within the time prescribed therefor in this Act or in any rule made thereunder and in other cases within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand, or within the time allowed for its payment by the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, or if payment is permitted in instalments by any of the authorities empowered in this behalf, any such instalment is not paid within the time specified, therefor, the dealer or other person shall pay, by way of penal interest, in the manner prescribed, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to-

(a) one per cent of such amount for each month or part thereof for the first three months after the date specified for its payment;

(b) two per cent of such amount for each month or part thereof subsequent to the first three months aforesaid."

The present one is not a case where any amount of tax was collected H

p. 832 Copy page pinpoint

A by the appellant and then not deposited. It is an admitted position that the ... validity of impngned demand depends on the meaning to be assigned \p the expression "if the tax or any other amonnt assessed" as occnrring in Section 23(3) of the Act. According to the appellant there was no order of assessment • nor a retoro of tomover filed by way of self assessment in whicll "~ase it should have been accompanied by proof of payment of tax aS per self B assessment and, therefore, the appellant was not required to pay tax unless and nntil a demand based on an order of assessment was raised against it. According to the respondent, an assessee held liable to payment of sales tax ~. and not filing a return of tom-over, cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than an assessee who files a retoro and, therefore, a reasonable construction c to be placed on sub-section 3 of Section 23 would be that an assessee not filing a return of turnover' should be held liable to pay penal interest with effect from a date on which he should have filed a retoro of toroover accompanied by payment of tax even if such return was not actually filed. The learned connsel for the appellant submitted in response that the scheme of the Act as it stood at the relevant time contemplates a different penal action D against such default, i.e. penalty nnder Section 45A of the Act for failure to submit the return of turnover which penalty can be as high as an aillonnt twice the amonnt of sales tax payable but liability to pay penal interest cannot be cast on the assessee for such failure when the Act does not specifically provide for levy of penal interest for failure to file retoro of tnrnover. We E fmd merit in the appellant's plea. A legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process.

Shri G.C. Sharma, learned senior connsel for the appellant has relied on the Constitution Bench decision of this court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, (1994) 94 STC 422 in support of his submission. F In J.K. Synthetics case, majority opinion in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1981) 48 STC 466 SC, has been over-ruled and the minority opinion of PN. Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was) has been approved. In Associated Cement Co. 's case, the demand for payment of interest was raised nnder Section UB of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The G assessee had submitted retoros accompanied by receipts evidencing the payment of tax on the basis of the retoros. The freight charges realised by the assessee were not included in the quantum of taxable turnover. Later on, law was settled by this court holding that the freight charges were liable to ~ be included in the figure of turnover whereafter the assessee filed a revised retuin including freight charges in the quantum of tnrnover and also paid the H

[emphasis supplied]

Repelling a similar plea rafaed on behalf of the Revenue as has been raised before us, Bhagwati, J. observed that if the assessee fails to file a F return, he exposes himself to penalty for such default; the Legislature could never have intended that the assessee should be liable, on pain of imposition of penalty, to deposit an amount which is yet to be ascertained through assessment.

The same issue which was dealt with by a three-Judges Bench of this G court in the case of Associated Cement Co. /Jd. came up for the consideration of Constitution Bench in the case of J.K Synthetics /Jd. (supra). This court overruled the majority opinion and approving the minority opinion in Asso- ciated Cement Co. 's case held that the provision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of H

p. 834 Copy page pinpoint

A the machinery provisions, is a substantive law, not adjectival law, and interest cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. This court further held that the "tax payable" or "tax due" is that amount which becomes due ex-hypothesi on the turnover and taxable turno- ver shown in or based on the return or as to which an order of assessment has been made. B In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench, we are clearly of the opinion that the liability of the assessee appellant to pay sales tax could have arisen either on return of turnover being filed by way of self-assessment or else on an order of assessment being made. No doubt Rule 27 (7A) of c the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 casts an obligation on assessees to file a return of total turnover and taxable turnover accompanied by proof of payment of the amount of tax due within 20 days of the previous quarter but such a return was not filed by the appellant. A failure to file return of taxable turnover may render the assessee liable for any other consequences or penal action as provided by law but cannot attract the liability for payment D of penal interest under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act on the parity of reasoning that if a return of turnover would have been filed on the due date then the tax as per return would have become due and payable on that date.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the E Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned single Judge is restored. There will be no order as to the costs.

V.M. Appeal allowed.