Back
1998 Supreme(Mad) 123
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JANARTHANAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. THANGAVEL
Indian Oil Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondents
T.C. (Revision) No. 622 of 1995 (Revision No. 246 of 1995)
Decided On : 05 February 1998
Filing of a complete monthly return under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 requires not only submission of the return within the prescribed period but also payment of tax for the month collected.
Headnote:
CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956 - SECTION 12(4)(II), 12(5)(II) - TAMIL NADU GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1959 - SECTION 12(4)(II), 12(5)(II), RULE 18(2), 18(4-A) - MONTHLY RETURN - PROOF OF PAYMENT OF TAX - PENALTY - IMPOSITION - VALIDITY - HELD, ASSESSEE-DEALERS VIOLATED OR REFRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 12, WHICH WILL ATTRACT PENALTY, UNDER CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 12 OF THE TNGSTA.
Fact of the Case:
The assessee-dealers opted to pay tax by filing monthly returns. They filed monthly returns during the assessment year 1986-87 within the prescribed statutory period, but they did not file proof of payment of tax along with the returns filed relatable to three months during the said assessment year. They belatedly effected payments of tax for the said three months.
Finding of the Court:
The assessee-dealers violated or refracted the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 12, which will attract penalty, under clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 12 of the TNGSTA.
Issues: Whether the order of the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposing penalty upon the assessee-dealers under section 12(5)(ii) for refraction or violation of the provisions of section 12(4)(ii) (as they stood then) of the TNGSTA for failure to submit proof for payment of tax due along with three monthly returns filed during the assessment year 1986-87 is sustainable in law ?
Ratio Decidendi: The prescribed return, as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Rules must be filed, not only within the periods specified, therein, but also tax for the month collected ought to have been paid and on fulfilment of both the conditions only, a return, if filed, can be stated to have been complete. Otherwise, it will not tantamount to filing of a complete return at all.
Final Decision: The tax case (revision) fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
JANARTHANAM, J.
This tax case (revision) is directed against the order dated November 11, 1994 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-104 (for short "the Tribunal") and made in T.A. No. 310 of 1993 relatable to the assessment year 1986-87 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956 - for short "the CSTA").
2. The assessee-dealers - Tvl. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., having their place of business at "Oil Bhavan", No. 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-34, it is said, opted to pay tax by filing monthly returns. It appears that the assessee-dealers filed monthly returns during the assessment year 1986-87 for all the months within the prescribed statutory period, in the sense of filing the returns before the 20th of the succeeding month. But, it appears, that though they filed the return within the prescribed period, they have not filed proof of payment of tax, along with the returns filed relatable to three months during the said assessment year. They, however, it appears, belatedly effected payments of Rs. 5, 00, 000, Rs. 6, 00, 000 and Rs. 35, 190 respectively for the said three months. There was a delay of five months and 27 days in effecting payment of Rs. 5, 00, 000, 19 months and 27 days in effecting payment of Rs. 6, 06, 000 and 40 months and 7 days in effecting payment of Rs. 35, 190.
3. The assessing officer, namely, the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Central Assessment Circle IV, Madras imposed penalty upon the assessee-dealers under section 12(5)(ii) for refraction or violation of section 12(4)(ii) (as they stood then) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959 - for short "the TNGSTA") in a sum equal to two per cent of the tax payable for every month or part thereof during which the default in the submission of the return continued. The penalty so imposed amounts to Rs. 3, 26, 116.
4. The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed appeal in Appeal No. 13 of 1992 before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madras (South) Division, Madras-6, and he confirmed the penalty so imposed by projecting the rationale as below :
"In the instant case, it is not denied that the appellant did not submit the monthly returns along with proof for, payment of tax due thereof. Therefore, the assessing authority has rightly invoked section 12(5)(ii) of the TNGST Act, 1959, and levied penalty. In view of these facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the assessing authority. Accordingly, the appeal in respect of this issue fails and is dismissed." *
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee-dealer made a further appeal before the Tribunal, as stated above and the Tribunal, in rum also dismissed the appeal, giving rise to the present action - Tax Case (Revision) No. 622 of 1995.
6. From the pith and submission of Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers and Mr. K. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), representing the Revenue, the one and only question that arises for consideration in this tax case (revision) is as to :
Whether, the order of the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposing penalty upon the assessee-dealers under section 12(5)(ii) for refraction or violation of the provisions of section 12(4)(ii) (as they stood then) of the TNGSTA for failure to submit proof for payment of tax due along with three monthly returns filed during the assessment year 1986-87 is sustainable in law ?
7. There is no pale of controversy that the assessee-dealers opted to file monthly return for the assessment year 1986-87. It is also equally not in dispute that the assessee-dealers filed their monthly return during the assessment year within the period prescribed, in the sense of filing the said returns before the 20th of the succeeding month. The assessee-dealers, however, admittedly did not file proof of payment of tax due along with the monthly returns fil
