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 34(8) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be deleted merely because the tax deducted at source was ultimately deposited with interest.
Analysis: Section 34 creates a separate scheme for deduction, deposit, interest and penalty. Sub-section (6) fixes the time for deposit of the tax deducted at source, sub-section (9) fastens liability to interest on delayed deposit, and sub-section (8) authorises penalty where the amount deducted is not deposited within time. The payment of interest is a consequence of delay and does not exhaust or neutralise the separate statutory power to impose penalty. While surrounding circumstances may be considered in quantifying penalty, deposit of the tax along with interest by itself does not negate the breach or bar penalty.
Conclusion: The deletion of penalty by the Tribunal was held to be unsustainable, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh consideration only on the quantum of penalty, while the levy of penalty under section 34(8) was upheld in principle.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the statutory scheme of section 34, delayed deposit of tax deducted at source attracts a separate penalty liability, and subsequent payment of the tax with interest does not by itself preclude imposition of penalty.