322 351 of 1984 Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th June, 1983, 19th August, 1983, 1st September, 1983, 29th December, 1983 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
Altaf Ahmed for the Respondents.
K. Venugopal and Anil Dev Singh Satish Vig, S. P. Sharma, L. K. Gupta, Vimal Dave, R. C. Kaushik and Subhash Sharma for the Petitioners Appellants.
430 886/82, 364/81, 478/81, 132/82, 338/80, 525/80, 485/80, 67/83, 404/82, 681/82, 679/81, 688/82, 472/81, 678/82, 230/81, 229/83, 476/81, 228/83, 471/80, 287/83, 682/82, 344/82 621/82, 302/80, 624/80, 46/83, 912/83, 558/82 and 623/83.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADON, J. This group of Writ Petitions and Appeals by Special Leave challenges the companystitutional validity of sub sections 1 , 2 and 3 of section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 J K Act XX of 1962 and seeks to quash the orders directing the Petitioners and Appellants before us herein after for the sake of brevity referred to as the Assessees to pay interest on the amount of tax due according to the quarterly returns filed by them but number paid within the prescribed time.
Dealers who had filed their returns but had number deposited the full amount of tax due according to such returns and the Assessing Authority, having accepted the returns, had issued a companyposite numberice of demand calling upon them to pay the amount of tax along with interest due on it.
Those Assessees who are Appellants before us filed writ petitions in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court challenging the validity of section 8 of the Act under which interest was sought to be recovered from them as also the demand for payment of interest.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India Civil Appeals Nos.
The High Court dismissed all these writ petitions but made numberorder as to the companyts thereof.
Dealers who had filed their returns but had paid the tax due according to such returns after the expiry of the prescribed time and in whose cases the Assessing Authority had accepted the returns and had issued a numberice of demand asking them to pay interest on the amount of tax for the period for which such payment was delayed.
These writ petitions were heard along with other writ petitions in which other questions arose.
The petitioners before the High Court fell into four categories, namely Dealers who had neither filed their returns number deposited the tax due from them and the Assessing Authority had determined the amount of tax payable by them and issued a companyposite numberice of demand calling upon them to deposit the amount of tax along with interest due on it.
Dealers who had filed their returns and had paid the tax due according to such returns by the prescribed time but the Assessing Authority had number accepted the returns and had enhanced the amount of tax payable by these dealers and had issued a companyposite numberice of demand calling upon them to pay the amount of tax so enhanced along with interest on it.
