9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the delayed payment made by the assessee also included the interest for the said period. Therefore, there is no financial loss that has accrued to the revenue. It is only a penalty for belated payment that has been imposed. There are no good ground to entertain these revisions - revision dismissed. - Commercial Tax Revision No. 26 of 2011 Commercial Tax Revision No. 27 of 2011 Commercial Tax Revision No. 28 of 2011 , Commercial Tax Revision No. 30 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2020 - Hon'ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. And Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Shri Mohit Maulekhi, learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondent in all the four revisions JUDGMENT RAVI MALIMATH, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer, was reduced to half, to a sum of ₹ 33,317/-. Aggrieved by the same, a second appeal was filed before the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Dehradun. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of the first appellate authority. Questioning the same, the present revisions are filed by the department. 4. Shri Mohit Maulekhi, learned counsel for the revisionist, contends that the material placed on record clearly indicates that the assessing officer was justified in imposing the penalty for the delayed payment; the respondent is in the habit of making delayed payment; and there is no illegality committed by the assessing officer in demanding the penalty from the respondent. Hence, the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest for the said period. Therefore, there is no financial loss that has accrued to the revenue. It is only a penalty for belated payment that has been imposed. 8. Furthermore, similar revisions were filed by the department wherein the reduction of penalty was questioned. By a common judgment dated 12.08.2020, the revisions (CTR No.25 of 2011 and connected matters) were dismissed. Hence the same reasoning are also applicable to the present case. 9. In view of the reasons assigned, we find no good ground to entertain these revisions. We make it clear that this is purely on the facts of the present case and shall not act as a precedent. 10. The facts and questions of law in the other three revisions are the same. The only difference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
