2025 (4) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....UP VAT Act and Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 470 of 2019 relates to the Assessment Year 2008-09 under the UP VAT Act. Since the issues involved in these revisions are similar and the same questions of law are framed, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 467 of 2019 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 467 of 2019 3. The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Varanasi in Second Appeal No. 116 of 2019 relating to the assessment year 2012-13. 4. The present revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2019 on the Ques....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied with the applicant's reply, the Assessing Authority passed an assessment order on 06.12.2017 imposing penalty upon the applicant. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2019 by deleting the penalty imposed by the assessing authority. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2019, the Revenue preferred second appeal, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 18.10.2019, by which the order dated 18.01.2019 passed by the first appellate authority has been set aside and the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Authority imposing penalty of Rs. 40,38,740/- under section 34(8) of the U.P. VAT Act has been restored. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-, but the same was deposited with short delay, and after the penalty order was passed, the interest of Rs. 4,979/- was deposited by the applicant on 26.02.2013, but still vide order dated 06.12.2017, penalty was imposed to the extent of 200%, against which first appeal was preferred, which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2019 quashing the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Authority. The Revenue preferred second appeal, which has been allowed by the impugned order. 10. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal and restoring the penalty order, has recorded that the revisionist being a habitual defaulter and therefore, justified the penalty order, but the record shows that not only the amount of TDS was deposited, but also the ....