RAJES KUMAR, J. - (1.) THESE seven revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 18,1995 relating to the months of July, 1993 (U.P. and Central), August, 1993 (U.P. and Central) September, 1993 (Central) and October, 1993 (U.P. and Central).
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that for the aforesaid months, the applicant could not deposit the due admitted tax within the specified time and subsequently deposited the same beyond the specified time. Interest on account of the delay was also deposited. The assessing authority issued notice under Section 15A(1)(a) of the Act for levy of penalty on account of delayed deposit of the admitted tax. The applicant contended that the delay in depositing the tax was due to the financial crisis and due to late receipt of challan from the bank. It was explained that the main supply was to the U.S.S.R. and on account of the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. sale was badly affected and the money could not be realised which resulted in a financial crisis. It was explained that on March 31, 1993 a sum of Rs. 19,13,06,159 was due from the creditor. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 24,73,02,656 while the amount due on March 1, 1992 was Rs. 7,57,11,060. It was also submitted that the financial condition badly affected the purchases of the raw material and also payment of electricity bills, and due to non -payment of electricity bill for the month April, 1993, electricity connection was disconnected. Upon these facts, it was submitted that since the applicant was running in great financial crisis and the amount of tax and interest was subsequently deposited, the penalty should not be levied. Assessing authority, however, has not accepted the plea of the dealer and has levied the penalty. The first appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. The applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals relating to the months of August, 1993 (U.P.) and August, 1993 (Central) in part and rejected the appeals relating to other months. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the authorities have disputed that the applicant was running in great financial crisis. It has also not been disputed that the interest for the late payment was also deposited. He submitted that the Tribunal has upheld the penalty merely on the ground that the applicant has given the cheque for deposit of the tax of Delhi head office, who took time in getting the amount encashed and secondly the dealer has charged the tax from its customers. Therefore, there could not be any reason for not depositing the tax within the specified time. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.
(3.) I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.;