AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These Trade Tax Revisions, u/s 11 of the Uttaranchal Trade Tax Act, have been preferred by the assessee against the same judgment and order dated 3.2.2005, passed by Trade Tax Tribunal, Haldwani in S.A. Nos. 140/2003 and 141/2003, therefore, these are being decided by this common judgment.
The revision No. 16/2005 has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority was justified in law in imposing the penalty of Rs. 71,770/- u/s 15(A)(1)(a) of the Trade Tax Act for the month of December, 2000 while the revisionist have deposited the entire admitted tax alongwith the interest on dated 28.2.2001?.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority was justified in law in imposing the penalty while the revisionist have deposited the admitted tax on dated 28.2.2001 alongwith the interest and the interest of Rs. 5288/- was deposited apart from the admitted tax by the revisionist?.
The revision No. 17/2005 has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority was justified in law in imposing the penalty of Rs. 86,392/- u/s 15(A)(1)(a) of the Trade Tax Act for the month of January, 2001 while the revisionist have deposited the entire admitted tax alongwith the interest on dated 15.3.2001?.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessing authority was justified in law in imposing the penalty while the revisionist have deposited the admitted tax on dated 15.3.2001 alongwith the interest and the interest of Rs. 3408/- was deposited apart from the admitted tax by the revisionist?.
The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a limited company having its office at Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar and engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Rubber articles. The revisionist is registered under the provision of Uttaranchal Trade Tax Act as well as the Central Trade Tax Act. During the month of December, 2000, the revisionist admitted its taxable liability of Rs. 2,87,092/- on a turnover of Rs. 71,34,603/- for his central sale and during the month of January, 2001 it admitted the taxable liability of Rs. 3,45,567/- on the turnover of Rs. 83,56,576-08P for his central sale. The revisionist could not deposit the admitted tax within the stipulated time, which was due to be deposited on due date. The revisionist moved applications on 31-1-2001 and 28-8-2001 to the Assessing Authority for seeking the further time to deposit the admitted tax but the Assessing Authority rejected the same. The revisionist deposited the entire admitted tax with interest on 28-2-2001 and 15-3-2001. The Assessing Authority served the dealer with notices u/s 15(A) (1) (a) of the Act. The dealer submitted explanation that the company is facing financial hardship and is not in a position to deposit the tax. The Assessing Authority rejected the plea and imposed penalty for not depositing the admitted tax within time. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the dealer preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) who dismissed the appeals. Thereafter the dealer preferred appeals before the Trade Tax Tribunal Haldwani Bench, who also dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order of the first appellate authority.
Now the assessee /dealer has preferred this revision before this Court.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
From perusal of the record reveals that the Assessing Authority had imposed the penalty of Rs. 71,770/- and Rs. 86,392/- for the months of December 2000 and January, 2001 respectively for not depositing the admitted tax in time. The Trade Tax Tribunal has given categorical finding that the trader has deposited the admitted tax with delay in each month. It was also found that the purchase and sale of the goods of the dealer was going on in normal course and the outstanding amount was being realized regularly from the creditors and the contention of the dealer that the firm was facing financial hardship was not accepted. It was obligatory upon the dealer to have arranged the fund for depositing the admitted tax within stipulated period. There is provision of imposing penalty up-to the extent of 50% u/s 15(A)(1)(a) of the Act. In the present matter the Assessing Authority imposed penalty @ 25%. Although the dealer had moved applications before the Assessing Authority for extension of time but the same were rejected and it was incumbent upon the dealer to deposit the admitted tax within stipulated time. The contention of the dealer that he had deposited the admitted tax along with interest on 28-2-2001 and 15-3-2001, but as the tax was not deposited within period, the delay cannot be exempted on the ground that the tax along with interest has been deposited after the stipulated period. We, therefore, hold that the penalties have rightly been imposed on the dealer for not depositing the admitted tax within stipulated period. All the substantial questions of law are decided against the revisionist and in favour of the Department.
The revisions lack merit and are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of T.T.R. No. 17/2005.