TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....For the Respondent : C.S.C ORDER 1. Heard Shri Ram M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax, Meerut exercising powers under Section 34 (8) of the U.P VAT Act, 2008 imposing a penalty of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g medical education and has been providing medical facilities to underprivileged patients having a general hospital and OPD on charge of Rs. 20/- as registration. The petitioner for the Assessment Year 2014-15 deposited tax to the tune of Rs. 1,90,65,162/- under Section 34 (1) towards TDS including Rs. 50,051/- towards interest. The Assessing Officer under assessment order dated 21.03.2018 recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 54 10 (a) of the Act. Thereafter, an ex-parte order dated 06.01.2021 was passed imposing penalty upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 9,18,666/- towards accrued interest on delayed payment of tax of Rs. 45,93,328/-. The petitioner filed a restoration application before the respondent no. 4 which is stated to be pending consideration. Meanwhile the respondent no. 4 issued notice under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest upon the payment of tax which was paid after a delay of few days only. The impugned order is in defiance of the material available on record as the provisions of Section 34 (8) of the VAT Act are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. The proceedings are in the teeth of Section 40 of the VAT Act. The impugned orders are in complete disregard of the judgment rendered in the case of M/....