Audit-report penalty cannot be imposed for technical delay where tax is fully paid and substantial compliance is shown.

Penalty under section 54(4) of the Bihar VAT Act could not be imposed for delayed or unsigned audit-report submission where no tax was found payable and the dealer had substantially complied with section 54(2). The penalty provision was linked to tax payable and default, so a purely procedural defect in signing and verification did not amount to a penal contravention when returns were filed, assessed tax was paid, and the report was otherwise submitted in the prescribed form. The delay was later rectified within a reasonable time, and the defect was treated as technical rather than indicative of tax evasion. The penalty orders were therefore unsustainable and the amount realised was refundable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 54(4) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be imposed for delayed or unsigned audit report submission when no tax was found payable and the dealer had otherwise substantially complied with the audit requirement.

Analysis: Section 54(2) requires audited accounts to be reported in the prescribed form, duly signed and verified by an accountant, while section 54(4) authorises penalty for contravention of that requirement. The penalty provision repeatedly links liability to "tax payable" and default, showing that the breach becomes penal only when it is connected with tax liability or tax evasion. The filing defect here was procedural and was later rectified within a reasonable time. The dealer had filed returns, paid the assessed tax, and no tax was found payable. The report was filed in prescribed form, and the delay in signature and verification involved an accountant's act beyond the dealer's exclusive control. In that setting, the breach amounted at most to a technical contravention and not a penal default attracting automatic consequence.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 54(4) could not be imposed on the assessee in the absence of any tax payable and where there was substantial compliance with section 54(2).

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty orders were unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to refund of the amount realised under them.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty provision tied to "tax payable" does not extend to a dealer who has discharged tax liability and whose audit-report defect is only technical and substantially cured within a reasonable time.

---