w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Commissioner, Commercial Tax v/s M/s. Bhushan Power And Steel Limited


Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100DL1999PLC108350

Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U27104CH1999PLC022266

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362

Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U00734BR2001PTC009590

Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011310

Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1998PTC092538

Company & Directors' Information:- S BHUSHAN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1982PTC012943

    Trade Tax Revision No. 530 of 2015

    Decided On, 22 December 2015

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARATI SAPRU

    For the Appearing Parties: Standing Counsel.



Judgment Text

1. This revision has been filed by the State for the assessment year 2014-15 against the order of the Tribunal dated 26th August, 2015. The question of law referred to is hereunder :

"Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commercial Tax Tribunal was legally justified in setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act whereas the dealer deposited admitted tax belatedly without any reasonable cause and reason?"

2. The Tribunal has deleted the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 54(1)A of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 after recording findings that the assessee deposited the tax as well as the interest for the delay that it had made. The Tribunal records that the State did not loose any revenue rather it had gained in the form of interest. This Court has taken a view earlier also in the case of M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CTT, reported in 2008 UPTC 991, that where the admitted tax is paid along with interest it would not be justified to impose any penalty.

3. In view of the above

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, no question of law arises. No other question was argued. 4. This revision has no merit, it is dismissed.
O R