SUDHIR AGARWAL,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for respondent.
(2.) These revisions under Section 11(1) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1948") have been filed against judgment and order dated 15.09.2008 passed in Second Appeal nos. 38 of 2003 and 37 of 2003. One relates to quantum and another to penalty. Revision no. 285 of 2003 was admitted on following questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Trade Tax Tribunal Bench I was justified to reject the explanation given by the revisionist. (ii) Whether learned Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-I was justified in upholding the tax liability of Rs. 152536.18 against the admitted tax of Rs. 48278.15 imposed by Assessing Officer as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) on basis of filing the return of turn over in time whereas the transaction was made to the government department and the payment was to be received through by means of cheque or bank drafts. (iii) Whether learned Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-I was justified in upholding the assessment order of the Assessing Officer only on the ground that mere writing of date by ink in the carbon copy of the challan indicated the malafide intention of the appellant to evade the tax. (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the learned Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-I upholding highly excessive and arbitrary penalty made by the Assessing Officer as well as up held by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) without having any nexus to the material to the record."
(3.) Revision No. 286 of 2003 was admitted on following questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the judgment and order passed by the learned Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-I was legally justified for imposing the tax liability of Rs. 8400/only on the ground of filing return of turn over due to financial crisis. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the learned Trade Tax Tribunal Bench-I upholding highly excessive and arbitrary penalty made by the Assessing Officer as well as up held by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) without having any nexus to the material to the record.";