* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8916 of 2005 Judgment reserved on: August 1, 2007 % Judgment delivered on: August 10, 2007 M/s H & R Johnson India Ltd. 501, Surya Kiran Building 19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi ...Petitioner Through Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate Versus 1. Commissioner, Sales Tax, Delhi 2. Delhi Administration, through Secretary Law Secretariat, Delhi ...Respondents Through Mr. H.L. Taneja, Advocate Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary WP (C) No.8916/2005 Page 1 of 5 MADAN B. LOKUR, J. Rule D.B. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21st April, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi in a revision petition bearing No.735/CST/99-2000. 3. The Assessee had made local sales to one registered dealer called M/s Shashi Nagpal & Sons during the assessment year 1994-95. It appears that the purchasing dealer did not issue any statutory declarations in form ST-1 to the Petitioner and, therefore, the Petitioner could not produce them before the assessing authority. On these broad facts, the Sales Tax Officer imposed sales tax on the Assessee and also charged interest on the amount not deposited. 4. The Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax by an order dated 20th November, 1999. Since there was no Appellate Tribunal in existence at that time, the Petitioner preferred a revision petition which came to be disposed of by the impugned order. 5. The Commissioner noted, and there is no dispute about this, that WP (C) No.8916/2005 Page 2 of 5 the Petitioner had already deposited the tax and the only grievance was with regard to the interest levied by the assessing authority. 6. It was submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner before the Commissioner, as well as before us, that his client had furnished ST-1 forms received from M/s Shashi Nagpal & Sons in respect of earlier assessment years and there was no reason why he should be disbelieved in respect of the present assessment year only because he was able to produce the requisite forms. 7. The Commissioner did not agree with the view canvassed by the Petitioner and it was held that the Petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence to prove that sales had been made to M/s Shashi Nagpal & Sons. On the contrary, it appeared that the purchasing dealer had not even obtained any statutory forms in the name of the Petitioner for the year that we are concerned with. Moreover, it was found, as per a report received from the Sales Tax Officer, that M/s Shashi Nagpal & Sons was not available at the given address for the last three years and the registration certificate granted to him was recommended for cancellation. Finally, the account payee cheques received by the WP (C) No.8916/2005 Page 3 of 5 Petitioner from M/s Shashi Nagpal & Sons in respect of the transactions in question could not be fully verified. 8. In view of these facts, the Commissioner disbelieved the Petitioner and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was liable to pay the necessary interest. 9. Before us, learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that his client was not liable to pay any interest on the amount of tax. Reference was made to J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, AIR 1994 SC 2393 but we find that that case pertains to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and the decision concerns the language used in that statute, which is not similar to the Delhi statute. Moreover, we find that the facts of J.K. Synthetics are completely different from the case of the Petitioner. 10. In so far as the present case is concerned, even though the sales were made in 1994-95, tax was paid by the Petitioner only on 30th October, 1998. There was no reason for the Petitioner to have withheld the amount that was legitimately due to the exchequer. By withholding the amount, the Petitioner would have earned some interest on the WP (C) No.8916/2005 Page 4 of 5 amount or in any case the Revenue would have lost some amount by way of interest on the tax due. Levy of interest is compensatory and not punitive. Consequently, the Petitioner is liable to compensate the exchequer for utilizing the amount that was legitimately due to the exchequer. 11. Even otherwise, on merits, we find that the reasons given by the Commissioner for denying relief to the Petitioner are quite cogent and no fault can be found with the view taken in this regard. 12. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Commissioner. There is no merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Madan B. Lokur, J August 10, 2007 V.B. Gupta, J ncg Certified that the corrected copy of the judgment has been transmitted in the main Server. WP (C) No.8916/2005 Page 5 of 5