SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1862

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF KERALA
Versus
JOY VARGHESE, KERALA RUBBER PRODUCTS
Decided on : November 6, 1996

Liability to pay penal interest under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act arises only if tax or amount is not paid within the time specified in the notice of demand.

Headnote:

Penal Interest - Kerala General Sales Tax Act - Liability to pay penal interest arises only if tax or amount is not paid within the time specified in the notice of demand

Fact of the Case:

The court affirmed the judgment that the liability to pay penal interest under Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act arises only if the tax or amount is not paid within the time specified in the notice of demand.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and concluded that the liability to pay penal interest did not arise in the absence of a notice of demand.

Issues: Interpretation of Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act

Ratio Decidendi: The liability to pay penal interest arises only if the tax or amount is not paid within the time specified in the notice of demand.

Final Decision: The judgment and order under appeal was affirmed, and the appeals and SLP were dismissed with no order as to costs.

( 1 ) WE have read the principal judgment and order under appeal (which is reported in Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala ). The Division Bench of the kerala High Court has set down in the judgment the various relevant statutory provisions and having analysed them has, in our view, come to the correct conclusion.

( 2 ) HAVING regard to the phraseology of Section 23 (3) of the Kerala general Sales Tax Act, the liability of the dealer to pay penal interest on the tax assessed or any other amount due under that Act arises only if such tax or amount is not paid "within the time specified therefor in the notice of demand". There being no notice of demand, it was held that the liability to pay penal interest did not arise. It is necessary to emphasise that this is not a case of payment of interest at the ordinary statutory rate but a case of penal interest and it is, therefore, that the Act provides that the liability to pay the same arises only after there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of a notice in that behalf.

( 3 ) THE judgment and order under appeal is affirmed. In the result, these appeals and SLP are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top