VATAP Nos.26 and 27 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: 4.5.2010 Avneet Distillers (P) Ltd. ...Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.K.L.Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG Punjab for the respondents. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) This order shall dispose of the aforementioned two appeals as the common question of law and facts arise for determination by this Court. However, we have taken the facts from VATAP No.26 of 2008. The following substantial question of law arise for consideration by this Court:- “Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case, the assessee is liable for payment of interest for the period prior to the date of assessment?” The appellant-assessee was a dealer registered under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short “the Act”) during the impugned assessment year 2001-2002. It filed its returns of sales showing a turnover of Rs.2,10,92,418/- claiming it to be branch transfers. However, no tax was payable on the basis of those returns filed by the assessee. The Assessing Authority framed assessment for the said period on 28.6.2003 vide Annexure A1 accepting the returns and allowing the deduction on account of branch transfers. However, while framing the assessment, the Assessing Authority levied the purchase tax under section 4-B of the Act. A penalty of Rs.40,000/- under section 10(6) and interest under section 11-D(1) of the Act was also imposed. In appeal, the Tribunal has held that as the tax in the case had been paid according to the returns filed by the assessee, hence, no penalty was leviable under section 10(6) of the Act. However, payment of interest was upheld. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in GSTR Nos.29 to 39 of 1997 titled as “M/s VATAP Nos.26 and 27 of 2008 2 Lakhi Ram Diwan Singh, Rohtak v. State of Haryana”, decided on 5.3.2010. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that while deciding M/s Lakhi Ram Diwan Singh's case (supra), this Court placed reliance on J.K.Synthetics Limited v. Commercial Taxes Officer, reported as [1994] 4 SCC 276 and Frick India Limited and another v. State of Haryana and others reported as [1994] 95 Sales Tax Cases 188. Learned counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the provisions of Section 11-D of the Act are para-materia with section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, which was the subject matter of consideration in M/s Lakhi Ram Diwan Singh's case (supra). Learned State counsel, however, submits that as the tax had not been paid by the assessee, therefore, it is liable to pay the interest under section 11-D of the Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is squarely covered by M/s Lakhi Ram Diwan Singh's case (supra), wherein it was held that the assessee is liable to pay interest under section 25(5) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 from the date of assessment and not prior thereto. In view of the above, the question posed in these appeals is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Resultantly, the present appeals are accepted and the impugned order dated 18.2.2008 (Annexure A4) passed by the Tribunal is set aside. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 4.5.2010 AS