Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bharati Sapru, J.
Commissioner, Commercial Tax - Appellant
Versus
S/S Bhushan power and Steel Limited - Respondent
Trade Tax Revision Mo. 530 of 2015
Decided On : 22-12-2015
PENALTY - U.P. Value Added Tax Act - The court held that when the admitted tax is paid along with interest, it would not be justified to impose any penalty under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a revision against the Tribunal's order to set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld by the court, citing that the assessee deposited the tax and interest for the delay, and the State had gained in the form of interest. The court also referred to a previous case to support its decision.
Issues: The legality of setting aside the penalty order under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act when the admitted tax was paid belatedly without reasonable cause.
Ratio Decidendi: When the admitted tax is paid along with interest, it would not be justified to impose any penalty under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed as it had no merit.
Bharati Sapru, J. -- This revision has been filed by the State for the assessment year 2014-15 against the order of the Tribunal dated 26th August, 2015. The question of law referred to is hereunder :
"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the COMMERCIAL TAX TRIBUNAL was legally justified in setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act whereas the dealer deposited admitted tax belatedly without any reasonable cause and reason?"
2. The Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 after recording findings that the assessee deposited the tax as well as the interest for the delay that it had made. The Tribunal records that the State did not loose any revenue rather it had gained in the form of interest. This Court has taken a view earlier also in the case of M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CTT, reported in 2008 UPTC 991, that where the admitted tax is paid along with interest it would not be justified to impose any penalty.
3. In view of the above, no question of law arises. No other question was argued.
4. This revision has no merit, it is dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
