JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. For the reasons stated in the affidavit(s), filed in support of the delay condonation application(s), the same are allowed, and the delay in filing the present revisions is condoned. 2. The revisionist-Commercial Tax, Uttarakhand has come up in revision(s) against the judgment of the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-1). 3. Facts are being taken from Commercial Tax Revision No.33 of 2017. 4. Brief facts in all the cases are that the respondent-M/s Himalaya Polytech Pvt. Ltd. is a registered dealer under the Value Added Tax Act and is engaged in the business of manufacture of pet bottles from plastic, polymer and grains. The dealer made a delay in payment of the tax due for the fourth quarterly period for 2013. 5. Vide order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure-2), penalty of Rs.2,10,904/-was imposed on the amount of tax due, which was Rs.4,21,807/-, which was the maximum penalty (50%). Against the order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure-2), the respondent-M/s Himalaya Polytech Pvt. Ltd. preferred appeal before the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, which was allowed on 08.06.2015 and the penalty imposed was reduced to Rs.1,05,452/-. The penalty was reduced from 50% to 25%. In the second appeals preferred by the Assessee, the Tribunal further reduced the penalty from 25% to 10% vide order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-1). Against the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-1), the revenue has come up in these revisions. 6. Learned Brief Holder for the revisionist has argued that as far as the quantum of penalty is involved, it is governed by Section 58(1)(vii)(b) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The minimum penalty is 10% of the admitted tax, and 50% is the maximum penalty, and the Assessing Officer has exercised its discretion as per the mandate of the Legislature. 7. The Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to examine the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa; Deputy Commissioner, Central School Organization & another vs. J. Hussain, (2013) 10 SCC 106 , as well as the judgments of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Dhampur East Company vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., 2004 (24) NTN 434; M/s Jain Sons vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2000 (16) NTN Page 139. 8. Relevant portion of Section 58 of the Act is as under:- “Section 58. Offences and Penalties. 8. Relevant portion of Section 58 of the Act is as under:- “Section 58. Offences and Penalties. (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person has committed the offence in any clause of column (1) of the following chart, it may, after such enquiry as deemed necessary, direct that such dealer or person shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the tax, if any, payable by mentioned in the related column (2), namely- Column-1 Offences Column-2 Penalties * * * * (vii) has, without any reasonable cause failed- (a) * * * * * * * * * * * * (b) to pay within the time allowed the tax due under the provisions of the Act; * * * * (b) a sum not less than ten percent, but not exceeding twenty five percent of the amount due if the amount due is up to ten thousand rupees and fifty percent if the amount due is above ten thousand rupees. * * * * 9. In the abovesaid judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court have examined the provisions of imposition of penalty for late deposit of tax with interest, and have held that if penalty is to be imposed it is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. The power should be exercised in reasonable manner and penalty should not be imposed in each and every case when there is a default. Imposition of penalty, mechanically, is highly improper and cannot be approved. When punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to the nature of charge, then principle of proportionality comes into play. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court martial, and finally, if dealer deposits the tax payable with interest prior to initiation of penalty proceedings, then lenient view should be adopted which assessing the quantum of penalty. 10. In the present case, the Assessing Authority has imposed 50% penalty on the amount of admitted tax, which the Appellate Authority has reduced to 25%, and the Tribunal reduced it to 10% from 25%. 10. In the present case, the Assessing Authority has imposed 50% penalty on the amount of admitted tax, which the Appellate Authority has reduced to 25%, and the Tribunal reduced it to 10% from 25%. The order of the Tribunal has been passed after applying the ratio of the abovesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court, and keeping in view that the tax had been deposited with interest. 11. Since the Tribunal in CTR Nos.33/17, 24/17, 25/17, 26/17, 27/17, 28/17, 29/17, 30/17, 31/17, 32/17, 34/17, 55/17, 56/17, 57/17, 58/17, 59/17, 60/17 and 61/17 has rightly followed the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as other High Courts that power to levy penalty is a discretionary power, and penalty should not be imposed in each and every cases where there is a default, and imposition of penalty, mechanically, is highly improper and cannot be approved. 12. Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., (2016) 60 NTN DX 21, dismissed the revision filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.08.2015, whereby the Tribunal had set-aside the penalty imposed on the assessee by observing that the assessee had deposited the admitted tax late along with the interest. Reference was also made to another judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CTT, 2008 UPTC Page 991, wherein it has been held that where the admitted tax is paid along with interest, it would not be justified to impose any penalty. 13. In the facts of the present case, the penalty has been reduced from 25% to 10%, and all the admitted returns had been accepted as it is. 14. In view of the above, no question of law arises in the present revisions. 15. The revisions have no merit, and the same are, hereby, dismissed. 16. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.