V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., has assailed in this revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad, setting aside the penalty imposed upon M/s. R. P. Gupta and Company, a dealer who is the opposite party in this revision.
(2.) The dealer carries on business in furniture. On 2nd September, 1973, a survey was made of his business premises and one Tilak Raj was present at the shop. He gave out that he was the brother of one of the partners (Sri R. P. Gupta). It is said that while accounts were being scrutinised, Sri R. P. Gupta also reached there. He was asked to affix his signatures upon two copy books which were found at the time of survey and had been signed by the Surveying Officer. Instead, however, of signing and returning them to the Surveying Officer Sri R. P. Gupta is said to have handed over those copy books to a munim and asked him to fun away with them. The munim did so. The copy books contained entries relating to business transactions of the dealer. Sri Gupta refused to sign the survey note as well.
(3.) A notice was served upon the dealer to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him under Section 15-A(1)(j) and (vi). The dealer showed cause which was not found satisfactory by the assessing authority which imposed the maximum permissible penalty of Rs. 5,000. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, upheld the penalty order but reduced the amount to Rs. 4,000.;