Court No. - 7
Case :- SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 296 of 2018 Applicant :- M/S Logix Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Opposite Party :- Commissioner Commercial Tax Counsel for Applicant :- Rishi Raj Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. The present revision has been pressed on question no.1 quoted below:-
"(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in granting stay of only 75% of the disputed tax, till the disposal of first appeal, instead of 100% stay, although accepted that applicant has good case on the merit of the case and financial condition of the applicant is weak?"
2. The revision arises against the rejection of the stay application for 25% of the disputed tax of penalty imposed under Section 34(8) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
3. In short, the assessee claims that there had been some inadvertent delay on its part in depositing TDS against payments made to a contractor engaged by it. However, before issuance of penalty notice the assessee made good the default together with interest, on 25.6.2013 and 23.9.2014 while the penalty notice was first issued to the assessee in the year 2018.
4. In such facts, it has submitted Section 34(8) of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary and, therefore, the assessee having made good the loss caused to the revenue, without issuance of any notice in that regard, it is not liable to suffer the penalty. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Tribunal had erred in not granting full stay to the assessee.
5. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the revision pending any further.
6. It appears that the applicant has a good prima facie case and further the fact the applicant is willing to furnish security for the entire disputed amount.
7. The question of law raised in this revision is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Subject to the applicant furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to the entire amount of disputed penalty, shall remain stayed.
8. It is further expected that the appeal may be heard and decided by the first appeal authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.
9. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Mini