Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 15-A(1)(e) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was sustainable where the assessee had availed the statutory appeal remedy within time and filed a stay application, but the stay order was passed later.
Analysis: Section 15-A(1)(e) authorises penalty only where the dealer, without reasonable cause, fails to pay the tax within the time allowed. The assessee had pursued the statutory remedy by filing the appeal and stay application within the prescribed period. The delay in disposal of the stay application was attributable to the authority and not to the assessee. In such a situation, non-payment during the pendency of the stay request could not be treated as a failure without reasonable cause, since that would make the statutory appellate remedy ineffective. The view taken in earlier authority that timely pursuit of the remedy negatives liability to penalty in these circumstances was followed.
Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the penalty order could not be sustained because the assessee's non-payment occurred while the statutory appellate and stay remedies were being diligently pursued.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for failure to pay tax within time cannot be imposed under section 15-A(1)(e) when the assessee has filed the statutory appeal and stay application within time and the delay in deciding the stay request is attributable to the authority, as such non-payment is with reasonable cause.