Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Parv Agarwal who has appeared on behalf of the State-respondents.
(2.) These two revisions with the consent of parties have been taken up for disposal together. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 282 of 2014 lays challenge to the order of the Tribunal upholding the levy of penalty upon the assessee for an alleged violation of Section 15-A(1)(o) of the 1948 Act. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 281 of 2014 lays challenge to a best judgment assessment which was undertaken and is a direct consequence to the levy of penalty upon the assessee. The facts on which there is not much dispute are as follows:
(3.) The assessee is stated to be engaged in the sale and supply of Cyclic Hydrocarbons (Marker). This product, in the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist, is not meant for sale in the open market and is primarily used by Oil Companies to examine and check the purity of petroleum products. A consignment of Marker is stated to have been apprehended during the course of transit from NOIDA to Lucknow. At the time of seizure, it was found that the consignment was not accompanied by Form-31 as is required in terms of Section 28A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 Act (1948 Act). The assessing authority places reliance upon the statement of the driver of the vehicle who stated that the goods had in fact been loaded at Delhi and were being directly transported to Lucknow. The case of the assessee was that the goods had been received at its Noida Branch office pursuant to a stock transfer effected from its Delhi office on 16 November 2006. On 21 November 2006 the goods are stated to have been transferred to its branch office at Lucknow. It is at this stage of the transit of the goods in question that the same were seized and formed the subject matter of the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee. As would be evident from a reading of the order of the Tribunal, it has relied upon the statement of the driver who is stated to have submitted before the authorities that the goods had been loaded at Delhi and were being directly transferred to Lucknow. It has additionally found that no documents evidencing the stock transfer from Delhi to Noida had been produced for its consideration. It has further noted that the stock transfer invoices dated 16 November 2006 which should have been deposited within twenty four hours, had not been handed over to the Departmental authorities at Noida at least till 21 November 2006. In this backdrop, the Tribunal has proceeded to affirm the levy of penalty. Insofar as the best judgment assessment against the assessee is concerned, it has found that the estimation made by the assessing authority was not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, from the estimation as made by the assessing authority it has directed a deduction of Rs. 14,00,000/- and has consequently upheld the rest part of the order of the assessing authority.;