DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX LAW BOARD OF REVENUE TAXES ERNAKULAM Vs. REHABILITATION PLANTATIONS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS tax revision case was filed out of time. C. M. P. No. 700 of 1995, filed to condone the delay, has been dismissed by a separate order. So this tax revision case has only to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

(2.) AFTER going through the records, we are satisfied that the tax revision case is liable to be dismissed on merits summarily. The respondent-company was bound to file the return of income on or before December 31, 1991. They filed the return of income only on October 1, 1991. A sum of Rs. 3,37,700 was paid on November 12, 1991. It is clear from the statement that the respondent-company had filed the return and remitted the tax before December 31, 1991. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondent-company ought to have paid advance tax before June 30, 1991. For their failure to pay the advance tax, respondent-company has explained the reasons for the delay in remitting the tax. The Tribunal has gone through the reply submitted by the respondent-company and was satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent-company. The power to impose penalty is a discretionary one. Inasmuch as the respondent-company has satisfactorily explained the delay in not remitting the advance tax in time and further it was found that the respondent-company has filed the return and paid the tax in excess amounting to Rs. 49,57,482, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the levy of penalty under section 37 (5) of the Act is not sustainable. We do not find any question of law involved in the above case. Therefore, we summarily dismiss the tax revision case. Petition dismissed. .