9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ales were filed on March 24, 1992 along with challans and cheque No. 443926 dated March 21, 1992. Nonfiling of the returns for U.P. and Central by March 20, 1992 inspired the department to initiate penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. In reply to the show cause notice it was submitted that the applicant's executive who was dealing with the sales tax matter was under bona fide belief that the return along with the tax can be deposited by the end of the succeeding month. The explanation furnished by the applicant was not accepted by the assessing officer and he imposed penalty under the aforesaid section by the order dated March 31, 1992. For the month of February, 1992 in respect of U.P. sales the pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s encashed it shall relate back to the date of payment, hence no penalty can be legally imposed? " 3.. Section 15-A(1)(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act reads as follows: "(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 return, as required under the provisions of this Act." 4. A perusal of the language employed in clause (a) clearly shows that the assessee will be liable to pay penalty if he fails to furnish the return or to deposit the tax due within the prescribed period with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arch 24, 1992 and the Tribunal under misconception of law wrongly observed that the amount of tax was deposited with the department on April 2, 1993 when the cheque was encashed. He pointed out that the cheque was submitted after getting it endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer on March 23, 1992. Photostat copy of the cheque as endorsed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sikandrabad, has been filed as annexure No. 2 to the affidavit. Rule 48 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules provides for manner of payment of sales tax dues. The said Rule reads as follows: "48. Manner of payment.-Unless expressly provided otherwise, any amount payable under the Act or the Rules as tax, fee, penalty, interest, composition fee or any money for any other purpose may be depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Parashram AIR 1976 SC 2229. It was held as follows: "..............................the defendants tendered the amount in arrears by cheque within the prescribed time. The question is whether this was a lawful tender. It is well-established that a cheque sent in payment of a debt on the request of the creditor, unless dishonoured, operates as valid discharge of the debt and, if the cheque was sent by post and was met on presentation, the date of payment is the date when cheque was posted." 9.. In K. Saraswathy Alias K. Kalpana v. P.S.S. Somasundaram Chettiar (1989) 4 SCC 527. "Payment by cheque is an ordinary incident of present day life, whether commercial or private, and unless it is specifically mentioned that payment must be in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chand v. Jain Plastic Industry (2002) 5 SCC 274 the Supreme Court has held that mere posting of a cheque without there being any material to show that the said posting of the cheque was with an intention of clearing the arrears of rent, would not amount the payment of rent to the landlord. In that case the tenant was earlier paying the rent in cash but this time rent was sent by way of cheque through post. On the postal envelope incomplete address of the landlord was given which was deliberately done to make out a case of having tendered the rent. Supreme Court after considering facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the tender was not a legal tender. 14.. From the above authorities coupled with the rule 48 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome in the order of the Tribunal that the applicant has deposited Rs. 1 lakh as advance for the month of March, 1992, in the month of March, 1992 itself. It was argued before the Tribunal that it should be taken as a mitigating circumstance and the order of penalty should be knocked off in its entirety. The Tribunal has accepted it partially by reducing the penalty amount. This Court in the case of Bahadur Motors v. Commissioner of Trade Tax (1999) 15 NTN 614 has held that it is a settled principle that the law does not take into account trifles. The delay of one day in that case was considered not to be a fit case for imposition of the penalty. In the case in hand there was Sunday intervening in-between March 20, 1992 and March 24, 1992. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
