TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the revisionist challenging the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated April 15, 2004, passed in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 (January 1997, under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act). The questions of law referred to are hereunder: (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to confirm the penalty of ₹ 2,99,200 und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary 20, 1997. The amount to be paid was ₹ 47,42,006.39 on February 20, 1997. The revisionist made an application to the assessing authority to extend the time for deposit of the admitted tax. The authority concerned extended the time up to February 27, 1997. The amount was deposited as hereunder: Date Amount 22.02.1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments claimed from its dealers were received. The assessing authority initiated proceedings for penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act and a penalty order was passed on February 20, 1998. The revisionist filed an appeal under section 9 of the Act. The appeal was allowed in part and the amount of penalty was reduced. Against the first appellate order both the Department as well as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose the penalty. In this case also learned counsel has argued that since the assessee was able to make the payments along with interest for the period of delay the penalty should not have been imposed on the assessee. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and having perused the material on record, I am in respectful agreement with the decision of this court in the case of Govind Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
