9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... standing counsel for the State. The present revision has been filed 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the month of January 1997, the last date for filing it was February 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 1,00, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in part and the amount of penalty was reduced. Against the first appellate order both the Department as well as the revisionist filed the second appeal under section 10 of the Act and the Tribunal confirmed the penalty order. While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal recorded a finding that even though the revisionist had money it had delayed in making the payment. The learned counsel for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material on record, I am in respectful agreement with the decision of this court in the case of Govind Sugar Mills Limited, Lakhimpur Khiri v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2010] 33 VST 399 (All); [2008] UPTC 991 and I am also of the view that since the assessee had paid interest for the period of delay, no further penalty should have been imposed on the assessee. In fact it has come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
