SUNEET KUMAR,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
(2.) The revision under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is for the assessment year 1996-97. The question of law referred is as follows: (i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty order under Section 13A(4) of U.P. Trade Tax Act? (ii). Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in upholing the penalty order on the basis of non filing of Application under Section 13A(6) of the Act or Appeal against the seizure order?
(3.) The revisionist/dealer is engaged in the businesses of manufacturing and sale of Agricultural Implements, Rubber Belts and Rubber Joints. The revisionist had dispatched 14 Rolls of Rubber Beltings to M/s Rajkot Mill Stores, Kanpur, accompanied by bility/challan dated 3 December 1996. The consignment was intercepted for the reason that the serial number of the challan was printed by a printing press and there being overwriting of the date of challan. A show cause notice was issued and seizure proceedings were initiated. On the basis of the proceedings the Trade Tax Officer, Deoband, Saharanpur issued show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act.;