EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is admitted that tax was deducted at source by the revisionist, but the same was not deposited in terms of the requirement contained in law. Subsequently, such tax has been deposited along with interest. Penalty equal to the amount of tax has also been imposed which is assailed in the revision.

(2.) Learned counsel states that the assessee is a statutory body constituted under the provision of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 and materials were brought on record to explain circumstances, on account of which T.D.S. Could not be deposited within time. Submission is that the Tribunal was required to have examined such explanation and imposition of penalty ought not to be a matter of routine.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, places reliance upon a judgement of this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 221 of 2016, decided on 14.2017, wherein imposition of penalty in such circumstances has been upheld. It is stated that on the aspect of quantum, the matter can be directed to be remitted back to the Tribunal for its consideration, in accordance with law.