- (1.) Heard Learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned standing counsel for the State. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated April 15, 2004, passed in Second Appeal No. 38 of 2000 for the assessment year 1996-97 (January 1997, under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act). The questions of law referred to are hereunder : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct to confirm the penalty of Rs. 2,99,200 under section 15A(1)(a) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act whereas the applicant had deposited the entire amount of tax along with penal interest within next five days ? (ii) Whether paucity of the fund for not deposit of tax is not a ground for deleting the penalty ? (iii) Whether in view of circular No. 245 dated April 23, 2002, the Tribunal was correct to confirm the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) of the Act at 10 per cent ? (iv) Whether in view of the decision of Krishna Arhat Kendra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,2003 UPTC 522, the penalty under section 15A(1)(a) amounting to Rs. 2,99,200 is sustainable in the eye of law ?
(2.) The facts of the case are that the revisionist was to pay the admitted tax and file its return for the month of January 1997, the last date for filing it was February 20, 1997. The amount to be paid was Rs. 47,42,006.39 on February 20, 1997. The revisionist made an application to the assessing authority to extend the time for deposit of the admitted tax. The authority concerned extended the time up to February 27, 1997. The amount was deposited as hereunder; Date Amount 22.02.1997 1,00,000 22.02.1997 1,00,000 24.02.1997 5,00,000 25.02.1997 4,00,000 27.02.1997 6,00,000 28.02.1997 16,00,000 04,03.1997 1,92,007 04.63.1997 12,00,000
(3.) The second application was made for extension of time on February 28, 1997 but the same was rejected. Ultimately, the revisionist deposited the balance of the remaining amount on March 4, 1997 along with interest.;