Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to these revisions are that the assessee is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and has its registered office at Ramji Bhai Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay. It has a factory in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Clutterbukganj, in the district of Bareilly where it carries on the business of manufacture of match boxes. The Bareilly unit of the assessee is registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Central Act"). During the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 the assessee opened a branch at Allahabad, which was being supervised by the assessee's Calcutta office. Under some legal advice the Calcutta office got the Allahabad branch registered separately as a dealer under the Act. The Allahabad branch had some depots in the eastern Uttar Pradesh. It has been alleged by the assessee that the Bareilly factory which was separately registered at Bareilly was not aware about the registration of the Allahabad branch as a separate dealer. The sales figures were sent by the Allahabad branch and the depots attached thereto to the Calcutta office where the returns under the provisions of the Act were prepared and sent to Allahabad along with the amount of tax by bank drafts to be deposited at Allahabad itself. At the time of assessment it transpired that the Allahabad branch could not be separately assessed as two assessments cannot be made against one company even though it may have been separately registered at two places and consequently the file pertaining to the Allahabad branch was transferred by the sales tax department from Allahabad to Bareilly. After receipt of the files at Bareilly it was discovered that for the months of June, 1976 to March 1978 the monthly returns were filed late, i.e., beyond the prescribed time under the Act and the tax due was also deposited after the expiry of the prescribed period. Consequently the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, Bareilly, who was the assessing authority of the assessee's Bareilly factory, issued notices under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty for the late filing of the return and not depositing the tax within the prescribed time should not be imposed. The said notices were contested by the assessee and it was pleaded by the assessee that there was sufficient cause for not submitting the returns in time as well as not depositing the due tax. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee was, however, repelled by the assessing authority and the penalty as contemplated under Section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act was imposed by various orders. The assessee feeling aggrieved against the orders of imposition of penalty in all the cases, filed separate appeals under Section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Bareilly, who upheld the orders of the assessing authority but reduced the penalty except for the months of November and December 1976 and the penalty for the said two months was knocked off. The assessee feeling further aggrieved against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the eighteen appeals of the assessee in part preferred second appeals under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the months of June, July, August and October 1976, and February 1977, allowed the appeals for the months of September 1976 and March, June and October 1977, and partly allowed those for the months of January, May, July, August, September and December 1977 and January, February and March 1978, The assessee feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has come to this Court in the instant fourteen revisions under Section 11 of the Act. Since the questions involved in all the aforesaid revisions are common, they are being disposed of by a common judgment with the consent of the parties.
(2.) I have heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and since no standing counsel was present on behalf of the Revenue I asked Mr. Kunwar Saxena, Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, who is the representative of the Revenue, to assist the court. Before, deciding the controversy involved in the instant cases it is relevant to refer to the various dates. The following is the chart showing the due dates of filing the returns, the dates on which they were submitted and how much delay was caused : JUDGEMENT_60_TLALL0_1989Html1.htm
(3.) It would be relevant here to refer to the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act which reads as under : "has, without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act, before furnishing the return or along with the return, as required under the provisions of this Act.";