2025:HHC:10155 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 196 of 2024 Decided on: 10.04.2025 ______________________________________________________________ M/s EPL Limited ....Petitioner Versus Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum- Appellate Authority & Another .…Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. _______________________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Gupta, Mr. Aditya Sood, Mr. Praveen Sharma and Mr. Abhinav, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocates General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:10155 2 Tarlok Singh Chauhan , Judge (oral) The petitioner has been imposed with a penalty under Sections 16(6), 16(7) and 50(2) of the HP VAT Act (for short, the ‘Act’), on the premise that these provisions are binding on the Tax Assessing Authority, which have been specifically mentioned by the HP Tax Tribunal in the impugned order dated 23.07.2024. Clearly, such findings are in teeth of the aforesaid provisions, more particularly, the provisions of Section 16(7), which read as under:- “Section 16 (7) of the HP VAT Act, 2005 states - “if a dealer fails without sufficient cause to comply with the requirements of the provisions of sub-section (4), the Commissioner or any person appointed to assist him under subsection (1) of section 3 may, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay by way of penalty, a sum - i) equal to ten percentum, for the delay upto fifteen days ii) equal to twenty five percentum, for the delay exceeding fifteen days but not exceeding thirty days and iii) equal to fifty percentum for the delay exceeding thirty days, of the amount of tax to which he is assessed or is liable to be assessed under section 21 in addition to the amount of tax to which he is assessed or is liable to be assessed.” 3. It would be noticed that the penalty under HP VAT Act is not automatic and can be waived off wholly or partly in case sufficient cause is shown by the assessee. 2025:HHC:10155 3 4. In the instant case, we find that the element of sufficient cause has not at all been considered by any of the authorities below and this assumes importance because admittedly there is three days’ delay as, the petitioner was required to deposit the tax by 20.09.2008, however, it had deposited the same on 23.09.2008. 5. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Assessing Authority for re-consideration of the entire matter, especially with regard to the sufficiency of the cause, which the petitioner may show to the Assessing Officer which prevented it from depositing the amount by the date i.e. 20.09.2008. 6. In addition thereto, the petitioner has also raised the various other questions of fact and law. However, since we are deciding the case only on the basis of Sections 16(6) and 16(7) of the Act, we make it absolutely clear that it shall be open to the petitioner as also the respondents to raise all legal and factual contentions before the Assessing Authority, including the one raised herein and not confined to the question of 2025:HHC:10155 4 limitation. Parties are directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on 05.05.2025. The instant revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) 10th April, 2025 (Sumit) Judge