JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The present revisions have been filed by M/s Packaging India Pvt. Ltd against the order dated 19.04.2011 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Uttarakhand Haldwani Branch, whereby the second appeals of the present revisionist filed against the order dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 51 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 have been dismissed. 2. Since common question of law is involved in the present case, the facts of CTR No. 57 of 2011 M/s Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttarakhand, Dehradun are being referred to. 3. The present revisionist is a dealer engaged in manufacture and sales of flexible packaging material (laminates and pouches) including scrap thereof and is duly registered as a manufacturer under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The dealer has filed monthly returns belatedly and has delayed in deposition of admitted tax payable under the provisions of Provincial and Central Act for the months of August, 2008, October, 2008, November, 2008 and February, 2009. 4. The Assessing Authority imposed the penalty against the respective months by passing separate penalty orders. The assessee went in Appeal and the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (Appellate Authority), vide common judgment dated 18th March, 2010, partly allowed the appeal of the dealer (appellant) and he quantified the penalty at the rate of 25% against the 50% penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, on Appeal, has affirmed the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dated 18th March, 2010 quantifying penalty to the extent of 25%. The details of the payment of admitted tax has been given in this order as under: S. No. Name of Month Amount of Admitted Payable Tax Date of filing monthly sales Tax Date of deposit of admitted payable Tax Last Date of Payment of Admitted Tax/Statement of Related Month under the Act 1 August 08 (Pra.) 6,18,484/- 17-10-08 14-10-08 30.09.08 2 August 08 (C.) 1,43,869/- 17-10-08 14-10-08 30-9-08 3 October 08 (Pra.) 1,39,126/- 02-12-08 02-12-08 30-11-08 4 October 08 (C.) 1,80,505/- 02-12-08 02-12-08 30-11-08 5 November 08 (C.) 11,74,749/- 03-1-09 03-01-09 31-12-08 6 November 08 (C.) 1,76,180/- 03-01-09 03-01-09 30-12-08 7 February 09 (Pra.) 13,84,059 31-3-09 31-3-09 20-3-09 8 February 09 (C.) 92,926/- 31-3-09 31-3-09 20-3-09 5. After going through the above said Chart, the Tribunal observed that the dealer has not placed satisfactory reply with proper evidences in relation to late deposition of admitted tax, in these months and hence, the present revision has been filed. 6. A perusal of the Chart as reflected above shows that from the last date of payment of the admitted tax, the payment was made and the delay is not even more, and the maximum delay is above 8 months is 11 days for the month of February, 2009 and for rest of the months, the delay is of 11 or 14 days. 7. The Department has not disputed the fact that the admitted tax liability with interest @ 1.25% per month has already been deposited by the revisionist. 8. A similar issue had come up for consideration before this Court with regard to imposition of penalty in CTR No. 33 of 2017 and connected cases titled as Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/s Himalaya Polytech Pvt. Ltd. as well as in CTR No. 92 of 2017 and connected cases titled as Commissioner, Commercial Tax vs. M/s Laxhit Fashion Pvt. Ltd. wherein the revisionist had come-up in revisions against the order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the penalty was imposed @ 10% and 15% respectively. 9. A reference can be made of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa; Deputy Commissioner, Central School Organisation & 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 NTN (24) 434; M/s Jain Sons vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2000 NTN (16) 139, which were examined by the Tribunal. 10. 10. 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 Column-2 Offences 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. 11. 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 while assessing the quantum of penalty. 12. Both CTR No. 33 of 2017 and connected cases as well as CTR No. 92 of 2017 and connected cases have been dismissed by this Court vide its orders dated 22nd April, 2024 and 15th April, 2024. 13. 12. Both CTR No. 33 of 2017 and connected cases as well as CTR No. 92 of 2017 and connected cases have been dismissed by this Court vide its orders dated 22nd April, 2024 and 15th April, 2024. 13. 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 interest. Reference was also made to another judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CTT, 2008 UPTC 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. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, the present commercial tax revisions are being allowed and the penalty of 25% imposed by the Tribunal is being reduced to 10%, which is the minimum penalty under Section 58(1)(vii)(b) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005.