- (1.) This revision is directed against an order imposing penalty upon the revisionist-assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 4-B (5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (1948 Act). Admittedly, the revisionist-assessee held a recognition certificate under Section 4B of the 1948 Act for manufacture of "iron and steel". The penalty has come to be imposed upon the assessee for the Assessment Years 1978-79 and 1979-80 consequent to iron and steel being used by it for manufacture of "two-way cages". It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that "iron and steel" was a generic entry which found mention in Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (1956 Act) and therefore use of iron and steel for the purposes of manufacture of two-way cages could not have visited the revisionist with penalty under sub section (5) of Section 4-B. It is further submitted that the recognition certificate held by the assessee had not been cancelled and therefore also the imposition of penalty was unjustified.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of the Court to the language of Section 14 and more particularly to the entry of "iron and steel" as carried in clause (iv) and submits that such an entry was not and could not have been accorded amplification and would have to be necessarily restricted to the specific articles which found mention in the various sub clauses appended to clause (iv).
(3.) Insofar as the second submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is concerned, this Court finds that the levy of penalty under sub section (5) of Section 4-B would stand attracted upon a finding being returned that goods were being used for purposes other than for which the recognition certificate had been granted. Learned counsel for the revisionist does not dispute that the recognition certificate was granted for the purposes of manufacture of "iron and steel". The mere fact that the recognition certificate had not been cancelled would not, in the opinion of this Court, relieve the revisionist from the levy of a penalty. This simply because the provision does not mandate the cancellation of the recognition certificate as a sin qua non or condition precedent to the imposition of penalty.;