Back
1985 Supreme(Mad) 61
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G RAMANUJAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N A SATHAR SAYEED
State of Tamil Nadu - Appellant
Versus
P. T. C. Sanghvi and Company and Others - Respondent
Case No : Tax Cases Nos. 1952 to 1956 of 1984
Decided On : 05 February 1985
Penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act should be levied based on the actual number of days of delay, not for the entire month or part thereof.
Headnote:
Penalty - Scope and Ambit of Section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959
Fact of the Case:
The assessing officer levied penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act for belated returns, considering 'for the month or part thereof' to mean penalty for the whole month even for a delay of a few days. The Tribunal held that penalty could be levied for the actual number of days and not the entire month.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the decision in a previous case involving the interpretation of the same words in section 24(3) applied to the present case, and held that penalty could be levied based on the actual number of days of delay, in line with the Tribunal's view.
Issues: Scope and interpretation of 'for each month or part thereof' in section 12(5)(ii) of the Act
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the interpretation of the identical expression in section 24(3) to hold that penalty should be levied based on the actual number of days of delay, in line with the Tribunal's view.
Final Decision: The tax cases were dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the scope and interpretation of section 12(5)(ii) of the Act.
RAMANUJAM, J.
In these tax revision cases filed by the State the common question that arises is as to the scope and ambit of section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In each of these cases the assessee has submitted the returns belatedly for the year 1980-81 and the assessing officer has chosen to levy penalty under section 12(5)(ii) not for the actual period of delay but levied the penalty taking into account the expression "for the month or part thereof" occurring in section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. According to the assessing authority even if there is a delay of a few days, that being a part of the month, penalty could be levied for the whole month. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have held that the penalty could be levied for the actual number of days and not taking into account the month as the basis. The said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged by the Revenue on the ground that the Tribunal's view is contrary to the statutory provisions under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act, which enables the authorities to proceed to levy the penalty on the basis of month or part thereof.
2. We find that the identical words "for each month or part thereof" occurring in section 24(3) came up for consideration before this Court in W.A. No. 10 of 1982 (Khivraj Motors Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and batch and this Court held that notwithstanding the use of the said expression in section 24(3) penalty could be levied by the authorities only on the basis of the actual number of days of delay. That decision rendered in connection with section 24(3) squarely applies to the facts of this case which involves the inter-pretation of the same words occurring in section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal's view seems to be in accord with the view taken by this Court in W.A. No. 10 of 1982 (Khivraj Motors Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer which considered the identical expression "for each month or part thereof". We are not therefore inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal in this case. The tax cases are therefore dismissed.
