TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 1081
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reference to the factual aspects would be necessary for adjudication of the issues involved. An application was filed under rule 48 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules") before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi (in short, "the Commissioner") praying for extension of time to pay the tax due for the month of February, 1996. Prayer was made for grant of time till March 31, 1996. Commissioner granted extension of time for payment of tax by order dated March 22, 1996 up to March 25, 1996. Order passed by the Commissioner reads as follows: "They may pay February tax (Rs. 13.62 lacs) by 25th March, 1996 and advance tax for March by 27th March." In reality payment for February, 1996 was made on March 30, 1996. Sales Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return is imposed after considering the reason in the reply. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) under local Act and Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lacs only) under the Central Act is imposed." But orders communicated were in cyclostyled forms about which we shall deal later on. Revisions filed under section 47 of the Act and under section 9(2) of the Central Act did not bring any relief to the petitioner. Revisional authority was of the view that since amounts have been collected from the parties, there was no scope for taking the stand that financial stringencies were there. 3.. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Sales Tax Officer did not consider the explanation offered and merely stating that the explanat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner was required to make payment of the admitted taxes for the month of March, 1996. The delay also is not shown to be very long and in any event payments were made before the financial year ended. The delay in fact is only of four days. The explanations offered by the petitioner do not appear to have been considered in its proper perspective, and the quantum of penalty levied is a pointer in that regard. Unless the conduct is contumacious and there is a deliberate defiance of statutory provisions, penalty in a given case may not be imposed even though the statute provides for imposition of penalty. 6.. Authorities have taken serious note of petitioner's non-compliance of Commissioner's direction to deposit advance tax. That cann....