Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) This revision, arising out of penalty proceeding, is directed against the judgment dated 20th January, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad, relating to assessment year 1984-85.
(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts for the purposes of the present case are that the applicant transported goods worth Rs. 30,814 from outside the State of U.P. to inside the State of U.P. without form XXXI. The consignee was Bharat Pump & Compressor, Government of India undertaking, Naini, Allahabad. The goods were seized and ultimately released in favour of Bharat Pump & Compressor unconditionally without any security. It appears that penalty proceedings were initiated against the present applicant under Section 15-A(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the penalty of Rs. 14,000 was imposed by the assessing authority. The applicant feeling dissatisfied against the said order preferred an appeal under Section 9 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who dismissed the appeal as time-barred. Assessee feeling further aggrieved preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which too dismissed the same as time-barred without going into the merits of the case. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, urged before me that the applicant was simply a transporter. The goods belonging to the Bharat Pump & Compressor, Government of India undertaking, which were subsequently released in their favour without depositing any security the applicant was labouring under the impression that since the goods had already been released to the consignee the question of imposition of penalty was not called for and as soon as the orders were passed it informed the consignee and was under the impression that the appeal may be filed by the consignee. But, however, since the consignee did not file any appeal and the authorities wanted to realise the amount from the applicant he preferred an appeal Under Section 9 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the appeal was fully explained by the applicant in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but the authorities committed error in not condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. It is true that condonation of delay under Section 6 of the Limitation Act is a discretionary matter which lies in the statutory authorities. The authorities are supposed to exercise that discretion judicially and not arbitrarily. It is also settled that while disposing of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay the authorities are also supposed to give reasons for not accepting the explanation offered by the applicant for condonation of delay. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal indicates that it has not given any cogent reasons as to why the explanation offered by the applicant for condoning the delay was not accepted. Apart from the said fact the other fact which is also relevant in the instant case is that the applicant was merely a transporter and the goods had already been released in favour of the consignee. Keeping in view of the totality and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be sustained.
(3.) In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to send the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) for deciding the appeal of the applicant afresh on merits. However, there will be no order as to costs.;