- (1.) Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) By means of present revision, the revisionist has assailed the order of Trade Tax Tribunal, Bareilly dated 26.3.2008, whereby the penalty imposed upon the revisionist under Section 4-B(5) of the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1948') by the Revenue has been affirmed. The present revision relates to the Assessment Year 2006-07.
(3.) Facts of the case in brief has narrated by learned counsel for the revisionist are that the revisionist is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act , 1956, having its registered office at Faridpur, Bareilly. The revisionist company is registered under the Act, 1948 as well as Central Sales Tax Act . The revisionist has been granted recognition certificate under Section 4-B(2) of the Act, 1948, for purchase of diesel against form III-B as provided under Section 4-B of the Act, 1948. The Diesel purchased by the revisionist was used in the Generator Sets for generating electricity which in turn was used for running the plant and machinery which is required for manufacture of "Khandsari Sugar". A notice under Section 4-B(5) of the Act, 1948 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Bareilly. The revisionist submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid notice on 17.3.2007. Considering the reply of the revisionist, the competent authority vide order dated 20.3.2007, imposed penalty of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2007, revisionist filed an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, 1948 before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Bareilly. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 23.8.2007, confirming the imposition of penalty. The revisionist filed second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bareilly, which was dismissed by order dated 26.3.2008, confirming the imposition of penalty. Hence, this revision.;