2022 (2) TMI 1327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty U/s 8 D(6) of the UP Trade Tax Act was justified? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal justified in not considering the specific remand direction of this Hon'ble Court in T.T.R. No. 358 of 2010? 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier T.T.R. No. 358 of 2010 was filed, which was decided by this Court by order dated 12.2.2015 with a specific direction of remand, which is quoted below :- "Such being the case, the matter needs reconsideration by the tribunal. On remand, this aspect of the matter alone be decided that when no loss is caused to the revenue and the am....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l. 16) B-170 and B.S.N. through Executive Engineer Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, VSTI 2014 (Vol. 19), B -154. 5. He further submits that the T.D.S. amount along with interest was deposited prior to initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 8 D (6) of the Act and there was no loss of revenue and in view of the aforesaid fact the penalty proceeding ought not have initiated. He further prays for quashing the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the order passed by the Tribunal. 7. The Court has perused the record. 8. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the payment of T.D.S. amount along with interest of upto date has been deposited and this fact has also been noticed in the order passed by this Court in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the Company in failing to register the Company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the Company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out. 10. In view of above, it clearly shows that the penalty could not be levied merely on the basis of failure to carry out statutory obligation. 11. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Commercial Tax Vs. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. (supra) has held as follows :- 4. From the record, it appears that the petitioner had deposited the TDS along with interest for delay. Thus, ....