YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
(2.) This revision emanates from proceedings taken under Section 48(5) of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008. The goods in question which were seized by the authorities are described as plastic granules. According to the revisionist, he was trading in a commodity known as re-processed plastic granules. The respondents however have seized material which were contained in a package which bore a stamp establishing the country of origin of the goods to be Brazil. It is on this basis that the authorities have proceeded to record their conclusion that the transactions in respect of the granules in question had not been entered into nor were they reflected in the books of account. They have also taken the position that no explanation was proffered by the assessee to explain the circumstances in which the import from Brazil was effected. It is on this ground that penalty has been levied upon the revisionist. While learned counsel desired this Court to go through material brought on record by means of a Supplementary Affidavit and sought to urge that these plastic granules have not been imported at all, the Court finds that the categorical findings recorded by the Assessing Authority in this respect were never challenged either before the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. The Supplementary Affidavit filed before this Court does not carry any explanation as to why the revisionist was unable to lead evidence or urge this contention before the First Appellate Authority or the Tribunal. As this Court peruses the memo of appeals filed, it is significant to note that the conclusion of the goods being imported from Brazil was never assailed.
(3.) Accordingly and in view of the above, this Court must necessarily come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the authorities below merit no interference. The revision is consequently dismissed.;