Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this revision is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.
(2.) The order of the tribunal dated 15.5.2017 is under challenge, whereby imposition of penalty under section 54(1)(1) of the U.P. VAT Act upon delayed deposit of tax has been affirmed. Section 54(1)(1) is relevant and is reproduced hereinafter:- "54. Penalties in certain cases- (1) The assessing authority, if he is satisfied that any dealer or other person, as the case may, has committed the wrong described in column 2 of the table below, it may, after such inquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary and after giving dealer or person reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct that such dealer or person shall, in addition to the tax, if any, payable by him, pay by way of penalty, a sum as provided in column 3 against the same serial no. of the said table: JUDGEMENT_228_LAWS(ALL)2_2018_1.html
(3.) Assessee is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Act and is engaged in trading of automobiles. For the month of November, 2009 the admitted amount of VAT payable by it had to be deposited by 20.12.2009. The assessee, however, was not having sufficient funds in its account, and therefore, made a request to the assessing authority to extend the time for depositing the admitted tax. Upon being convinced of justification furnished, the time to deposit VAT was extended by four days i.e. upto 24.12.2009. The assessee could not deposit the tax by 24.12.2009 and it was actually deposited late by two days i.e. on 26.12.2009. For the delay in deposit of tax the revisionist deposited interest due and payable upon it. The assessing authority, however, proceeded against the assessee and levied penalty at the rate of 20% of the admitted tax amounting to Rs.6,92,540/-. This penalty is maintained by the tribunal as well. Reason assigned to non suit the revisionist is that it had sufficient overdraft facilities and that the amount of tax could have been paid from it. The factual plea setup by the assessee that in its bank account it had no liquid funds, however, is not disputed.;