https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164199 Penalty under section 35(8) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was discretionary, and the maximum penalty for delayed TDS deposit could not be imposed mechanically. The Tribunal accepted that the dealer had deducted TDS, made bona fide efforts to deposit it on time, prepared drafts promptly, and the delay resulted from banking and logistical difficulties rather than mala fides or retention of the tax. Since interest for the delay had also been paid, the reduction of penalty was proper and the revision was dismissed. en-us Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164199 Penalty under section 35(8) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 was discretionary, and the maximum penalty for delayed TDS deposit could not be imposed mechanically. The Tribunal accepted that the dealer had deducted TDS, made bona fide efforts to deposit it on time, prepared drafts promptly, and the delay resulted from banking and logistical difficulties rather than mala fides or retention of the tax. Since interest for the delay had also been paid, the reduction of penalty was proper and the revision was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164199