- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prahlad Rai And Others v. Sales Tax Officer, Meerut And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were issued two notices by the Sales Tax Officer, Hapur, seeking recovery of Rs 34,796.44 and Rs 12,850 towards interest on arrears of sales tax. The arrears related to two business firms owned by the appellants’ ancestors for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1962-63. After inheriting the properties of their ancestors, the appellants were called upon to pay the arrears of sales tax, which they admittedly paid. The impugned notices pertained only to interest on the arrears so paid.
The appellants challenged these interest-recovery notices by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. They then approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition against the High Court’s judgment.
Legislatively, Section 8(1-A) was inserted into the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 by the U.P. Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1963, with effect from January 25, 1964. It provides for simple interest at 18% per annum on unpaid tax that remains in arrears for six months after the time specified in the notice of assessment and demand, or after commencement of the amending Act, whichever is later, deeming such interest to be part of the tax.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, brought into force on January 25, 1964, applies to sales tax arrears arising from assessments made prior to that date, so as to attract interest on arrears outstanding after the provision’s commencement.
- Whether service of a separate notice of demand is a prerequisite for the levy of interest under Section 8(1-A), particularly where the appellants voluntarily paid the tax arrears after the amending Act’s commencement.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Section 8(1-A), effective from January 25, 1964, should not apply to arrears resulting from assessments made prior to that date; accordingly, no interest could be levied on such pre-1964 arrears.
- No notices of demand in respect of the sales tax were served upon the appellants; therefore, they did not become defaulters and were not liable to pay interest.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U.P., (1974) 3 SCC 137; 1973 UPTC 690 | To support that interest under Section 8(1-A) accrues automatically on arrears outstanding after the provision’s commencement and that no separate notice of demand is required. | Relied upon by the High Court to reject the appellants’ contention regarding the necessity of notice; the Supreme Court found no reason to differ. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On the first issue, the Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that Section 8(1-A) applies to any sales tax amount that was in arrears when the provision came into force and that remained unpaid for six months thereafter. The High Court had noted that, at the time Section 8(1-A) commenced on January 25, 1964, the appellants’ sales tax was admittedly in arrears and remained unpaid beyond six months from that date. Consequently, interest began to run automatically on those arrears regardless of the assessment years to which they related. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in this reasoning and expressly agreed with it.
On the second issue, the Court rejected the contention that interest liability depended on service of a separate notice of demand. It emphasized that the appellants had voluntarily paid the arrears and that, under Section 8(1-A), the accrual of interest is automatic if arrears remain unpaid for six months after commencement of the amending Act. It was not disputed that the appellants paid the arrears more than six months after the Act’s commencement. The High Court had also relied on Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U.P. to reject the notice-based objection, and the Supreme Court saw no reason to depart from that conclusion.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED with no order as to costs. The Court granted the appellants six months’ time to make payment of the interest, directing that no coercive steps be taken for recovery of the arrears of interest during this period. An interim stay had been operating during the pendency of the appeal.
Implications: The decision affirms that under Section 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, interest at 18% per annum accrues automatically on tax arrears that remained unpaid for six months after the provision’s commencement, irrespective of the years to which the arrears relate, and without the necessity of a separate notice of demand for interest. The immediate effect is that the appellants must pay the interest demanded, subject to the six-month grace period; the opinion does not purport to set a new precedent beyond affirming the High Court’s application of the statutory provision.
Order
1. The appellants were served with two notices by the Sales Tax Officer, Hapur for the recovery of Rs 34,796.44 and Rs 12,850 an account of interest on arrears of sales tax. Two business firms owned by the ancestors of the appellants fell into arrears in respect of sales tax for the years 1952-53 to 1962-63. The appellants, having inherited the properties of the ancestors, were asked to pay the arrears of sales tax. It is the admitted position that the appellants had paid the said arrears. The abovementioned notices were only in respect of the interest on the amount of arrears so paid. The appellants challenged the notices by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. This appeal via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
2. The U.P Sales Tax Act, 1948 was amended and sub-section (1-A) was added to Section 8 of the Act. The amendment was introduced by the U.P Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1963 which was enforced with effect from January 25, 1964. Sub-section (1-A) is as under:
“8.(1-A). If the tax payable under sub-section (1) remains unpaid for six months after the expiry of the time specified in the notice of assessment and demand, or the commencement of the U.P Bikri-Kar (Dwitiya Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1963, whichever is later, then without prejudice to any other liability of penalty which the defaulter may, in consequence of such non-payment incur under this Act, simple interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum shall run on the amount then remaining due from the date of expiry of the time specified in the said notice, or from the commencement of the said Adhiniyam, as the case may be, and shall be added to the amount of tax and be deemed for all purposes to be part of the tax.”
3. The appellants contended before the High Court that abovequoted Section 8(1-A) having been enforced with effect from January 25, 1964 the arrears of sales tax which became due as a result of assessment made prior to the said date cannot come within the mischief of the said sub-section. The High Court rejected the contention in the following words:
“Now, Section 8(1-A), no doubt, was added to the U.P Sales Tax Act with effect from January 25, 1964, but it provides that if any amount on account of sales tax is in arrears, for a period of six months from the date of the service of the notice of demand, or from the commencement of the provision, it shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent. Admittedly, the sales tax was in arrears against the petitioners when Section 8(1-A) came into force and it remained unpaid after the expiry of six months from January 25, 1964, when the provision came into force. Interest, therefore, started automatically running on the arrears irrespective of the years to which they related. There is thus no force in this contention.”
4. We see no infirmity with the reasoning of the High Court and agree with the same.
5. The second point raised before the High Court was that notices of demand in respect of the sales tax were not served upon the petitioners and as such they did not become defaulters and were not liable to pay interest. The appellants had admittedly paid up the entire arrears of sales tax voluntarily. The accrual of interest is automatic and no separate notice of demand was required to be served in that respect. It is clear from Section 8(1-A) that the interest becomes payable if the arrears of sales tax remain unpaid for a period of 6 months after the commencement of the amending Act. It is not disputed that the arrears of sales tax were paid by the appellants six months after the amending Act. Apart from that the High Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U.P (1974) 3 SCC 137, 1973 UPTC 690 and rejected the contention. We see no reason to differ with the reasoning and the conclusions of the High Court.
6. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court interim stay was operating against the respondents. We allow six months time to the appellants to make payment and we direct that no coercive steps should be taken against the appellants for the recovery of arrears of interest during the said period of six months.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Alert