BHARATI SAPRU, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist Sri Krishna Agrawal and Sri Namai Das learned standing counsel for the State.
(2.) THE revision has been filed by the assessee under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 against the order of the Tribunal dated June 4, 1999. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has sustained the penalty imposed upon the assessee under Section 4B(5) of the Act, for having contravened the terms of the eligibility certificate on account of the fact that they sold soda ash in contravention of the terms of the recognition certificate.
(3.) THE questions of law referred are hereinbelow: (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal is legally correct and justified in confirming the penalty under Section 4B(5) on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in confirming the penalty at Rs. 67,608.36? (iii) Whether the levy of penalty at Rs. 67,608.36 is based on relevant consideration and is legally justified? ;