1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50274 Court No. - 10 Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 467 of 2019 Revisionist :- B.H.U. Project Division II Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Taxes Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Singh, Prem Shanker Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. WITH Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 468 of 2019 Revisionist :- B.H.U. Project Division II Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Taxes Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Prem Shanker Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 470 of 2019 Revisionist :- B.H. U Project Division II Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Taxes Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Prem Shanker Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C. HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned ACSC for the State - respondent. 2. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 467 of 2019 relates to the Assessment Year 2012-13 under the UP VAT Act, Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 468 of 2019 relates to the Assessment Year 2013-14 under the 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 2 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 Question of Law No. 'A', which reads as under:- "(A) Whether penalty under Section 34(8) of U.P. VAT Act, 2008 merely on the ground of infraction of law, when the statute confers discretion to the assessing authority in the matter of levy of penalty as well as quantum of penalty and no reasons have been recorded in the penalty order regarding the explanation furnished by the Applicant and also the quantum of penalty?" 5. Learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Department of Central Government working under the Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, Government of India. He further submits that in the assessment year in question, i.e., 2012-13, the revisionist made payments to different contractors and since in view of section 34(1) of the UP VAT Act, the revisionist was required to deduct the amount towards satisfaction of tax payable by such contractors, the applicant deposited such amount in the Government treasury; however, there was a short delay in depositing certain amounts deducted in the month of January, 2013 and the amount of Rs. 20,19,370/-, along with interest of Rs. 4,979/-, was deposited by the applicant on 26.02.2013. He further submits that on 29.10.2017, after a period of more than four years, a notice was issued directing the applicant to show cause as to why penalty may not be imposed for late deposit of amounts deducted in the month of January, 2013, to which the applicant submitted reply on 28.11.2017. Dissatisfied 3 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 submits that the modus operandi adopted by the revisionist for making any payment fast, the amount were claimed from the Central Government and after getting the said amount, all payments and taxes were deposited. In the said process, it takes some time, but as soon as the said amount were received, it was deposited thereafter without any delay. He further submits that the amount of TDS were made from the payments of the contractors, but after getting the said amount from the Head Office at Delhi, which took sometime and therefore, some delay occurred in depositing the said amount, but the amount was deposited, thereafter, along with interest. Therefore, the levy of penalty upon the revisionist is not justified. He further submits that the levy of penalty to the extent of 200% is not justified. He further submits that in spite of the reasonable explanation for not depositing the amount within the stipulated time, the Tribunal as well as the Assessing Authority completely failed to appreciate the bona fide reasons. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Sahayak Samagri Prabandhak (Astt. Material Manager), Charbagh Vs. Commissioner of U.P. Commercial Tax [2019 (0) Supreme (All.) 15]. 4 7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 9. The record shows that for the month of January, 2013, TDS was deducted to the extent of Rs. 20,19,370/-, 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 amount of interest were deposited. The penalty order as well as the order of the first appellate authority specifically records the stand of the revisionist that it is a Central Government Undertaking and for depositing any money, sanction and budget is allocated and thereafter, the amount is paid and deposited, which took its own time, but no weightage of the said fact has been given by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 11. It is a matter of common knowledge that in Government Department, some unintentional procedural delay occurs, which takes its own time, to which interest were paid by the applicant. 12. This Court, on an identical set of facts, in the case of Sahayak Samagri Prabandhak (Astt. Material Manager), Charbagh (supra), has reduced the penalty to the extent of 5%. The issue in hand is also covered by the said judgement. 5 13. The record shows that pursuant to the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by this Court, the revisionist has deposited 1/4th amount of payment under the impugned order before the Authority concerned. 14. Considering the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, the revisionist is liable for penalty to the extent of 1/4th, which has already been deposited by the revisionist pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.12.2019. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Varanasi in all the revisions are modified to the extent as above. 16. Accordingly, all the revisions are partly allowed. 17. The question of law is answered accordingly. Order Date :-08/04/2025 Amit Mishra Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad