IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Commercial Tax Revision No. 12 of 2009 Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. …………Revisionist. Versus Bajpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………Respondent. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Ms. Puja Banga, Advocate, present for the respondent. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. (Oral-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.) This is Delay Condonation Application No. 3162 of 2009, for condonation of delay in filing the revision against the order dated 15th November 2008, passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Second Appeal No. 173 of 2003. (2) Heard and perused the affidavit of Prakash Chandra Balutia, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, accompanying the application. (3) Registry has wrongly mentioned delay of 435 days which in fact is only 43 days. (4) Delay is sufficiently explained. Application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (5) Also, heard on admission. (6) By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 15.11.2008, passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Second Appeal No. 173 of 2003 (Assessment Year 1989-90). (7) Brief facts, giving rise to this revision, are that respondent / assessee is a public sector cooperative sugar mill. The Assessing Officer has found that the assessee has not deducted the tax, under Section 8-D(1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, from an amount of Rs.1,98,01,112/- paid for the Assessment Year 1989-90 to the Contractors and only 2% tax has been deducted under said section on the amount paid to the tune of Rs.1,96,963/-, as such the said authority (A.O.) under Section 8-D(6) of the aforesaid Act vide its order dated 29.12.1995 imposed a penalty of Rs.15,91,967/-. Said order was affirmed by the first appellate authority. The second appellate authority affirmed the findings of A.O. and the first appellate authority, however, reduced the penalty by Rs.11,92,005/-. (8) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Tribunal has not violated any law in reducing the amount of penalty. After considering facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any question of law involved in this revision. (9) Therefore, the revision is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 3163 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (V.K. Bist, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant., J.) 27.04.2009 NS