TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in T.T.R. No. 358 of 2010 vide order dated 12.2.2015 by which the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal has upheld the levy of penalty under Section 8 D(6) holding that once there was failure to comply with the order, the levy of penalty is justified. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT ] clearly shows that the penalty could not be levied merely on the basis of failure to carry out statutory obligation. This Court has specifically held that once the amount of T.D.S. along with interest has been deposited, there is no loss to the revenue - In the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second round of litigation. Earlier T.T.R. No. 358 of 2010 was filed, which was decided by this Court by order dated 12.2.2015 with a specific direction of remand, which is quoted below :- Such being the case, the matter needs reconsideration by the tribunal. On remand, this aspect of the matter alone be decided that when no loss is caused to the revenue and the amount is paid along with interest, should the penalty be imposed on the assessee? In view of the above, the matter is therefore remanded to the tribunal for reconsideration. The matter before the tribunal may be disposed of finally in accordance with law within three months from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order being placed by the assessee before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have initiated. He further prays for quashing the impugned order. 6. Per contra , learned Standing Counsel supports the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The Court has perused the record. 8. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the payment of T.D.S. amount along with interest of upto date has been deposited and this fact has also been noticed in the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in T.T.R. No. 358 of 2010 vide order dated 12.2.2015 by which the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The Tribunal has upheld the levy of penalty under Section 8 D(6) holding that once there was failure to comply with the order, the levy of penalty is justified. 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out. 10. In view of above, it clearly shows that the penalty could not be levied merely on the basis of failure to carry out statutory obligation. 11. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vs. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows :- 4. From the record, it appears that the petitioner had deposited the TDS along with interest for delay. Thus, there was no loss to the revenue. When the TDS was deposited along with interest and there was no loss to the revenue, then there was no justification for levy of the penalty. There was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee and by keeping in mind the ration laid down in the case of Price Waterhouse Cooper Vs. CIT. JT, 2012 (10) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
