ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This revision questions an order passed by the Tribunal, affirming imposition of penalty upon the revisionist under Section 48(5) of U.P. Value Added Tax Act. The order records that at the time of seizer, the assessee had not produced tax invoice, and as such an inference has been drawn that goods were not shown in the accounts register. In view of such discussion and observation, the order passed by the authorities imposing penalty has been upheld.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in order to attract provisions contained under Section 48(5) of the Act, twin conditions are required to be examined by the Tribunal i.e. (i) whether books of account have not been property maintained, and (ii) whether there was any intention on part of the assessee to evade payment of tax.
(3.) It is contended that the Tribunal has not adverted to these two crucial aspects of the matter, and in the absence thereof, the order itself cannot be sustained.;