IMPORTANT POINT
Penalties for late tax payments must be proportionate and not imposed mechanically, considering the circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT :

RITU BAHRI, C.J.

1. The present revisions have been filed by M/s Packaging India Pvt. Ltd against the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand Haldwani Branch, whereby the second appeals of the present revisionist filed against the order dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 have been dismissed.

2. Since common question of law is involved in the present case, the facts of CTR No. 57 of 2011 M/s Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun are being referred to.

3. The present revisionist is a dealer engaged in manufacture and sales of flexible packaging material (laminates and pouches) including scrap thereof and is duly registered as a manufacturer under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The dealer has filed monthly returns belatedly and has delayed in deposition of admitted tax payable under the provisions of Provincial and Central Act for the months of August, 2008, October, 2008, November, 2008 and February, 2009.

4. The Assessing Authority imposed the penalty against the respective months by passing separate penalty orders. The assessee went in Appeal and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), vide common judgment dated 18th March, 2010, partly allowed the appeal of the dealer (appellant) and he quantified the penalty at the rate of 25% against the 50% penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, on Appeal, has affirmed the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18th March, 2010 quantifying penalty to the extent of 25%. The details of the payment of admitted tax has been given in this order as under:

5. After going through the above said Chart, the Tribunal observed that the dealer has not placed satisfactory reply with proper evidences in relation to late deposition of admitted tax, in these months and hence, the present revision has been filed.

6. A perusal of the Chart as reflected above shows that from the last date of payment of the admitted tax, the payment was made and the delay is not even more, and the maximum delay is above 8 months is 11 days for the month of February, 2009 and for rest of the months, the delay is of 11 or 14 days.

7. The Department has not disputed the fact that the admitted tax liability with interest @ 1.25% per month has already been deposited by the revisionist.

8. A similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court with regard to imposition of penalty in CTR No. 33 of 2017 and connected cases titled as Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/s Himalaya Polytech Pvt. Ltd. as well as in CTR No. 92 of 2017 and connected cases titled as Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/s Laxhit Fashion Pvt. Ltd. wherein the revisionist had come-up in revisions against the order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the penalty was imposed @ 10% and 15% respectively.

9. A reference can be made of the judgm