- (1.) A. N. GUPTA, J. The applicant deals in the sale of shoes, etc. The matter relates to the assessment year 1976-77. The applicant had about 6 depots, 147 retail shops and 47 agencies throughout the State during the said assessment year. Under the provisions of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the monthly returns of the sales is to be filed and the trade tax has to be deposited by the end of the succeeding month. For example, the return for the sales of month of June in any year has to be filed and the tax has to be deposited by the end of the next month, i. e. , by 31st July. Since the applicant had a large network, it was not able to file the return for the whole of the month after collecting figures from all its branches and shops. The practice of the applicant was to file the return for the sale figures from February 16 to March 15, and from March 16 to April 15, and likewise for every month. In accordance with this practice, the applicant filed a return for the year 1976-77 in which he had shown the sale figures of Rs. 40,16,776. 22 paise for the period March 16, 1976 to March 31, 1976. Similarly, the sale turnover of Rs. 30,68,592. 34 paise was shown for the period March 16, 1977 to March 31, 1977. It means that the sale turnover of Rs. 40,16,776. 22 paise was not liable to be taxed for the assessment year 1976-77. Similarly, the sale turnover from March 16, 1977 to March 31, 1977 amounting to Rs. 30,68,592. 34 paise was shown by the applicant in the return for the year 1977-78 and, therefore, the applicant claimed that the turnover of Rs. 40,16,776. 22 paise for the period March 16, 1976 to March 31, 1976 be deducted from the total turnover for the year 1976-77. This was not allowed by the assessing authority but it was allowed in first appeal. However, the assessing authority had observed that the penalty proceedings against the applicant under section 15-A (1) (c) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, be initiated for concealment of particulars of turnover. Accordingly, these proceedings were initiated and a penalty amount of Rs. 1,25,000 was imposed, On first appeal, this amount was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh. Aggrieved by the first appellate order, the Commissioner, Trade Tax, as well as the applicant preferred second appeals before the Trade Tax Tribunal which dismissed the assessee's appeal and allowed the appeal of the Commissioner and enhanced the amount of penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1,22,744. 00 against which this revision has been preferred.
(2.) A perusal of the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal shows that it upheld the order of penalty passed by the assessing authority and enhanced the amount of penalty by observing that the practice of preparing the return from 16th of one month to 15th of the succeeding month was not come out from the facts on record. This is an incorrect observation of the Tribunal as the first appellate authority as well as the assessing authority had observed in their orders that that was the practice of the applicants It was urged by the learned Standing Counsel that under the provisions of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, it was incumbent on the applicant to file the return of the turnover from first of the month to the last of the month by the end of the succeeding month and it was not open to the applicant to file the returns for the period from the middle of the month to the end of the next month. It may be that, but it is not a case in which by any stretch of imagination it can be held that the applicant concealed the particulars of his turnover. He gave all the particulars, his account books were accepted and the applicant was taxed on his entire turnover. It may be that 15 days turnover of one month of one assessment year was first not shown but thereafter it was shown and the tax was levied. In view of this, the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal upholding the order of penalty cannot be sustained. The assessing authority had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,600 on the applicant under section 15-A (1) (c) for importing goods without furnishing proper certificate, which has been upheld by the Tribunal. No revision has been preferred against the said decision of the Tribunal which has now become final. The result is that the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated May 12, 1988 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is set aside to the extent that it is held that the applicant is not liable to pay any penalty under section 15-A (1) (c) for concealment of turnover and the penalty imposed under that provisions is knocked off. Petition allowed. .;