https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374801 Section 34(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act treats interest for delayed deposit and penalty for failure to deposit as distinct liabilities, so payment of interest does not by itself bar penalty. Because the provision uses discretionary language, the authority must decide fairly after hearing the person concerned and consider bona fide reasons, mitigating circumstances, and the nature of the default. Absence of mens rea is not decisive in a civil penalty regime, though it remains relevant to the exercise of discretion. On the stated facts of delayed TDS deposit by a government department, the penalty was maintainable but reduced further to 5% of the TDS amount. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374801 Section 34(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act treats interest for delayed deposit and penalty for failure to deposit as distinct liabilities, so payment of interest does not by itself bar penalty. Because the provision uses discretionary language, the authority must decide fairly after hearing the person concerned and consider bona fide reasons, mitigating circumstances, and the nature of the default. Absence of mens rea is not decisive in a civil penalty regime, though it remains relevant to the exercise of discretion. On the stated facts of delayed TDS deposit by a government department, the penalty was maintainable but reduced further to 5% of the TDS amount. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374801