Allahabad High Court
M/S. Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. ... vs The Commissioner, Of Trade Tax Lko. on 3 February, 2010
Author: Bharati Sapru
Bench: Bharati Sapru
Court No. - 33
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1435 of 2003
Petitioner :- M/S. Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent :- The Commissioner, Of Trade Tax Lko.
Petitioner Counsel :- Nikhil Agrawal,Bharat Ji Agrawal
Respondent Counsel :- S.C.
Trade Tax Revision no. 1435 of 2003
M/s. Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
versus
The Commissioner of Trade Tax
And
Trade Tax Revision no. 1436 of 2003
M/s. Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
versus
The Commissioner of Trade Tax
and
Trade Tax Revision no. 1437 of 2003
M/s. Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd.
versus
The Commissioner of Trade Tax
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Heard learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel for the department.
These three revisions have been filed by the assessee against the common order passed by the tribunal dated 19.11.2003 for the months of Jan., Feb., and August, 1998. Almost similar questions of law have been framed in these revisions. The questions of law referred to in the leading revision no. 1435 of 2003 are as under:
"(i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was not justified in confirming the imposition of penalty for the month of January, 1998 and restoring the penalty order passed by the assessing authority?
(ii) Whether the applicant having deposited the entire tax as well as the interest for late payment @ 24% per annum suo muto without receiving any notice from the department, the imposition of penalty was not justified in view of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in the case of M/s. Bahadur Motors, Saharanpur vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow; The Commissioner Trade Tax vs. M/s. Wheels India Limited, M/s. Western India Match Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax and M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. Allahabad vs. The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.?
(iii) Whether the applicant having deposited the entire tax as well as the interest suo muto for the delay in depositing the tax and also the interest on the amount of interest which was deposited on 29.4.1998, hence no penalty can be legally imposed?
(iv) Whether in any any view of the matter, the imposition of penalty is illegal and is liable to be quashed?"
In view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, Allahabad vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. reported 1999 NTN (vol. 14) 42, the penalty imposed by the tribunal under section 15-A(1)(O) is not justified and is deleted. It is deleted for the reason that the tax which was late paid by a period of 7-8 days in the case of the assessee were deposited along with interest. The order of the tribunal imposing penalty is set aside.
The revisions are allowed as above. No costs.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 rk