JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. These seven revisions under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 18,1995 relating to the months of July, 1993 (U.P. and Central), August, 1993 (U.P. and Central) September, 1993 (Central) and October, 1993 (U.P. and Central).
2. The brief facts of the case are that for the aforesaid months, the applicant could not deposit the due admitted tax within the specified time and subsequently deposited the same beyond the specified time. Interest on account of the delay was also deposited. The assessing authority issued notice under Section 15A(1)(a) of the Act for levy of penalty on account of delayed deposit of the admitted tax. The applicant contended that the delay in depositing the tax was due to the financial crisis and due to late receipt of challan from the bank. It was explained that the main supply was to the U.S.S.R. and on account of the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. sale was badly affected and the money could not be realised which resulted in a financial crisis. It was explained that on March 31, 1993 a sum of Rs. 19,13,06,159 was due from the creditor. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 24,73,02,656 while the amount due on March 1, 1992 was Rs. 7,57,11,060. It was also submitted that the financial condition badly affected the purchases of the raw material and also payment of electricity bills, and due to non-payment of electricity bill for the month April, 1993, electricity connection was disconnected. Upon these facts, it was submitted that since the applicant was running in great financial crisis and the amount of tax and interest was subsequently deposited, the penalty should not be levied. Assessing authority, however, has not accepted the plea of the dealer and has levied the penalty. The first appeal filed by the dealer was rejected. The applicant filed second appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals relating to the months of August, 1993 (U.P.) and August, 1993 (Central) in part and rejected the appeals relating to other months.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the authorities have disputed that the applicant was running in great financial crisis. It has also not been disputed that the interest for the late payment was also deposited. He submitted that the Tribunal has upheld the penalty merely on the ground that the applicant has given the cheque for deposit of the tax of Delhi head office, who took time in getting the amount encashed and secondly the dealer has charged the tax from its customers. Therefore, there could not be any reason for not depositing the tax within the specified time. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order of the Tribunal.
4. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below.
5. Section 15A(1)(a) of the Act reads as follows:
15A. Penalties in certain cases.--(1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person-
(a) has without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act before furnishing the return or along with the return, as required under the provisions of this Act; or.
6. To invoke the provision of Section 15A(1)(a) of the Act, the assessing authority should see whether the dealer has failed to furnish the return of his turnover or deposited the tax due under this Act before furnishing the return or along with the return "without reasonable cause".
7. In the case of Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. reported in [1999] 14 NTN 42, while dealing with the case relating to the penalty under Section 15(1)(a) this Court held as follows:
Under the provisions of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, a dealer has to pay interest at 24 per cent. This is virtually an usurious rate of interest and no dealer would subject himself such heavy burden unless it is really hard pressed for money. Penalty under Section 15A(1)(a) can be levied if, there is absence of reasonable cause which has to be established by the Revenue. In the present case, the dealer had established that it had no sufficient fund to enable it to deposit the money within the time prescribed. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that when the tax has been deposited along with the interest, no penalty can be levied. See Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Wire-Cond Delhi Pvt. Ltd. [1986] UPTC 175, Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 76 STC 42 (All) : [1989] UPTC 1074 and Willard India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1987] UPTC 466.
8. In the case of Commercial Auto Sales Pvt. Limited, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow reported in [2000] 17 NTN 714 this Court held as follows:
Para (3). As is evident, there was only trifling delay of 9 days and 15 days in the payment of tax and the dealer voluntarily without any action on the part of the assessing officer filed the return, as well as, paid the tax along with the interest at 24 per cent. The interest at 24 per cent is very high and nobody would suffer that interest unless there are good reasons. Penalty under Section 15A(1)(a) is leviable if there is no reasonable cause and the burden to prove the absence of a reasonable cause lies on the Revenue. Apart from rejecting the dealer's explanation, it has brought no material on record to establish the absence of a reasonable cause. The approach of the assessing officer that there might be other bank accounts or over draft facilities merely shows that the approach is merely conjectural.
As is evident the default was trifling and the State has not suffered any loss. On the other hand it has gained by earning 24 per cent interest. Therefore, there was no justification for levying penalty for such a trifling default. In Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1989] UPTC 1074 and Eastern India Transformer and Switch Gear (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1993] UPTC 212, this Court has held that penalty should not be levied in such circumstances. The honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa has held that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so and whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances.
9. In the present case, the explanation of the dealer has not been disputed that due to the financial crisis, the amount could not be deposited within the specified time, which was subsequently deposited along with the interest. In my opinion, the applicant was able to make out the case of "reasonable cause", inasmuch as no case of mala fide intention is made out and accordingly, the penalty is not justified. In the similar circumstances, in the case of Krishna Arhat Kendra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [2003] UPTC 522, this Court has deleted the penalty.
10. Following the aforesaid decision, the penalty is accordingly deleted.
In the result, all the revisions are allowed. Penalty under Section 15A(1)(a) of the Act are set aside.