TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Tribunal, Lucknow, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax and the order passed by the assessing authority under section 15A(1)(a) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act are all quashed. - - - - - Dated:- 15-4-2008 - TARUN AGARWALA , J. TARUN AGARWALA J. These six revisions filed under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act ) are directed against the proceedings initiated under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act for the non-deposit of the entry tax within the stipulated period. The brief facts leading to the filing of the revisions is, that the applicant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar and its bye-product. By U.P. Act No. 30 of 2007, section 4A was inserted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. The appellate authority recorded a finding that the applicant had deposited the entire admitted tax along with interest, and therefore, partly allowed the appeal and reduced the penalty. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue Department as well as the applicant filed a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order, also recorded that the dealer had deposited the interest on the late deposit of the entry tax but, after considering the matter, remanded the matter back to the assessing authority for a fresh determination of penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act. The applicant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s later, failing which simple interest at the rate of two per cent per mensem shall become due and be payable on the unpaid amount with effect from the day immediately following the last date prescribed or till the date of payment of such amount, whichever is later and nothing contained in section 7 shall prevent or have the effect of postponing the liability to pay such interest. To invoke the provision of section 15A(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority is required to consider, as to whether, a dealer has failed to furnish the return of his turnover or deposited the tax due under the Act before furnishing the return or along with the return without a reasonable cause. The penalty under this provision is leviable where the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Rules nor any demand was raised. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act could not be initiated. There is another aspect of the matter. Penalty could not be levied where reasonable cause has been shown. In the present case, the applicant had furnished a reasonable cause, namely, financial crisis. No case has been made out by the opposite party, namely, that the applicant deliberately avoided to make payment within the specified period. Nothing has been stated that the ground urged by the applicant was baseless. In the opinion of the court, sufficient cause was shown by the applicant for the delay in depositing the admitted tax. The burden to prove the absence of a reasonable cause lay upon the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. The interest at 24 per cent is very high and nobody would suffer that interest unless there are good reasons. Penalty under section 15A(1)(a) is leviable if there is no reasonable cause and the burden to prove the absence of a reasonable cause lies on the Revenue. Apart from rejecting the dealer's explanation, it has brought no material on record to establish the absence of a reasonable cause. The approach of the assessing officer that there might be other bank account or over draft facilities merely shows that the approach is merely conjectural. As is evident the default was trifling and the State has not suffered any loss. On the other hand it has gained by earning 24 per cent interest. Therefore, there was no justification fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, this court is of the opinion that the imposition of penalty was not justified. In Mansarovar Paper Industries Limited, Najibabad, Bijnor v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2000] 117 STC 329 (All); [1999] UPTC 1133, the court quashed the order of penalty where the trader had deposited the tax along with interest after the passing of the order of the penalty. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 421 (All); [1989] UPTC 1074, it has been held that where the tax due was deposited along with interest, the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act could not be imposed. In view of the consistant pronouncement of various judgments on this issue by the court, this court is of the opinion that the imposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
