Penalty for delayed audit report filing was deleted where the delay was bona fide and no deliberate default was found.

Penalty for delayed filing of an audit report under section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 was held unwarranted where the dealer had paid the tax and the delay was explained by personal hardship, including care for a disabled son. The Tribunal treated the delay as neither deliberate nor intentional and found no lack of bona fides. The High Court held that this discretionary factual assessment did not give rise to any substantial question of law, and it upheld the deletion of penalty in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was warranted for delay in filing the audit report under section 61(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

Analysis: The audit report was filed beyond the extended time. The Tribunal found that the dealer had paid the tax and that the delay was explained by personal hardship, including the need to attend to a disabled son. On those facts, the Tribunal concluded that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and that the conduct did not lack bona fides. The High Court found no substantial question of law in that exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: Penalty was not warranted and the order deleting penalty was upheld, in favour of the assessee.

---