MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three revisions have been filed by the Meerut Development Authority, against a common order dated May 31, 1991 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench II, Meerut, in Second Appeals No. 338 to 340 of 1990 relating to assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-1990 under Section 8-D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) The facts giving rise to present revisions in brief are that the applicant is a Development Authority constituted under the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Act"). Its main activities are for the development of Meerut City. During the relevant assessment years, the applicant had got executed certain civil contracts and had paid a sum of Rs. 9,73,606.73, Rs. 1,28,03,960 and Rs. 1,72,54,324 respectively to the contractors. It had not deducted any tax at source as provided under Section 8-D(1) of the Act. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector 6, Meerut, had initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 8-D(6) of the Act and vide separate orders, each dated March 31, 1990 imposed a sum of Rs. 38,944.26, Rs. 5,12,158.26 and Rs. 6,90,172.92, respectively as penalty. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant had preferred separate appeals under Section 9 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Meerut, who vide order dated July 5, 1990 had upheld the imposition of the penalty in each of the three years in question. Still feeling aggrieved, the applicant had preferred second appeals under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order has partly allowed the appeals. It has reduced the amount of penalty to 100 per cent of the amount of tax liable to be deducted under Section 8-D(1) of the Act. The said reduction in the quantum of penalty was made by the Tribunal on the supposition that the Sales Tax Officer had imposed penalty to the extent of twice of the amount which ought to have been deducted under Section 8-D(1) of the Act. However, the amount of penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Officer was only to the extent of the amount of tax which ought to have been deducted under Section 8-D(1) of the Act and not twice of the said amount. The applicant had filed applications under Section 22 of the Act before the Tribunal seeking rectification of the impugned order on the ground that the quantum of penalty should have been reduced by half. Shri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant has made a statement at the Bar that the applications filed under Section 22 of the Act have been subsequently rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) I have heard Shri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.