K ravichandra babu judge —Liability to Pay Interest on Delayed Tax is an Automatic Liability, but Court can’t quantify the Interest: Madras HC



HEADLINES
Provisions of Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) not applicable to Short-Deduction of TDS: ITAT [Read Order]
ITAT stays Rs. 398 Crores Tax Demand on Lucknow Development Authority [Read Order]
Filing of Financial Statements and Annual Returns are Ministerial Acts of Directors: Bombay HC [Read Order]
Allahabad HC rejects Anticipatory Bail to GST evader running alleged Bogus Firm [Read Order]
No Service Tax on consideration Received from Foreign Service Recipient under Storage and Warehousing Services: CESTAT [Read Order]
Liability to Pay Interest on Delayed Tax is an Automatic Liability, but Court can’t quantify the Interest: Madras HC [Read Judgment]
CBDT to Felicitate Outstanding Work of Income Tax Officers in E-Assessment [Read Circular]
Delhi HC recalls Look Out Circular against Chartered Accountant where he co-operate in Investigation [Read Order]
Coronavirus Impact: CBIC to Facilitate 24×7 Custom Clearance across the Nation
Delegated Authority can exercise the Power to Send Notice when Delegated Authority has ‘Reason to Believe’: Gujarat HC [Read Judgment]
CST & VAT / GST | HEADLINES | TOP STORIES
Liability to Pay Interest on Delayed Tax is an Automatic Liability, but Court can’t quantify the Interest: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

February 21, 2020 2:43 pm| By : Mariya Paliwala 

 
 
 
 
 
 

The Madras High Court has held that the liability to pay the interest on delayed tax is an automatic liability but the quantification cannot be unilateral.
The High Court cannot determine the quantity of interest. The case was that after the introduction of GST basically three types of returns are to be filed. GSTR-1 is Returns showing the details for the outward supply of goods or services supplied by the assessee.
GSTR-2: Returns showing the details for the inward supply of goods or services supplied by the assessee. GSTR-3:  Returns showing the details of the total purchase and total sale and tax payable and the input tax credit.
The petitioner could not file the monthly returns of his income because of the recession in the market. As a consequence, the Superintendent ofCentral Excise Duty demanded a sum of money as an interest for the belated payment of tax. The petitioner no doubt was ready to pay the interest in the tax, however, he was not satisfied with the quantification of the interest calculated.
The issue raised in this case was whether the quantification done by the Superintendent of Central Excise Duty is binding of the petitioner or not?
The Single Bench of Justice K. Ravichandra Babu accepted the fact that the liability to pay the interest on delayed tax is an automatic liability but the quantification cannot be unilateral.
However, the writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the court can not determine the quantification of the interest imposed on the petitioner.
To Read the full text of the Judgment CLICK HERE

 
 
 
 
 
Topics:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME