Ravi Oil Mills, Kurnool vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—The TRCs. arise out of a common order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The orders questioned in appeals before the Tribunal were those levying interest or the delayed payment of sales tax dues under the CST and APGST Acts. As far as CST is concerned, it is now settled by the Supreme Court in India Carbon Ltd. etc. Vs. State of Assam, , that there being no substantive provision in the Central Sales Tax Act for charging the interest on delayed payment of tax, the provisions of local Sales Tax Act relating to interest cannot be imported by taking resort to Section 9(2) and Section 9(2-A) of the CST Act. In view of this judgment, TRC Nos.10, 11, 12 and 60 of 1992 have to be allowed. Accordingly, they are allowed.

As regards the levy of interest u/s 16 of the APGST Act on the delayed payment of local sales tax. We see no ground to differ with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly took the view that the interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 permitting the lifting of attachment on payment of certain amount at one time and a further amount after some more time, does not amount to an order permitting payment of tax in instalments, made under the APGST Act. It is neither an order passed under the provisions of the Act nor does it tantamount to an order permitting payment of tax by instalments. It was an ad hoc order granted by way of interim measure in order to release the properties of the assessee from attachment so as to enable him to run the business. In fact, the Tribunal granted substantial relief by directing adjustment of the amount refundable to the petitioner by virtue of the Supreme Court''s order and to demand interest only on the balance amount. We see no error in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, TRC Nos.3, 6 and 9 of 1992 are dismissed.

We make no order as to costs.