Sufficient cause for delayed E-Sugam declaration sustained, and no question of law arose in revision.

Penalty for belated furnishing of an E-Sugam declaration was found unwarranted where the assessee showed sufficient cause, including initial unavailability of user credentials as a newly registered dealer and later upload of the declaration. The Tribunal's acceptance of that explanation was treated as a fair exercise of discretion, and the revisional court held that such a factual conclusion did not give rise to any question of law. The penalty order was therefore left undisturbed and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for belated furnishing of the E-Sugam declaration was liable to be set aside for sufficient cause and whether the Tribunal's order gave rise to any question of law in revision.

Analysis: The Tribunal had accepted the assessee's explanation that it was a newly registered dealer, that user credentials were not initially available, and that the declaration was later uploaded and furnished. The Court found that the Tribunal had, in a fair exercise of discretion, properly concluded that sufficient cause existed for the delay in producing the declaration. On that basis, the penalty was not warranted. The Court further held that such a conclusion did not raise any question of law under the revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The penalty order was not interfered with and the assessee succeeded.

---