ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Following questions are stated to arise for consideration in the present revision: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in disbelieving documents produced on the day of interception of vehicle on the surmises and speculations of having been prepared after the detention of the vehicle, and without any substantive material on record to hold so? (ii) Whether the revisionist was liable to pay any penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act after the presentation of the relevant documents within hours of the interception of vehicle carrying rice meant for export?
(2.) Penalty under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 has been imposed upon the assessee on the ground that at the time when the vehicle was detained the driver could produce valid documents to show that the movement of goods was duly accounted for in the books of account.
(3.) Assessee herein is a registered dealer and is having a rise mill at Saharanpur. It appears that 95 bags of basmati rice were loaded on a tractor trolley No. HR-5E/6899, and was dispatched to one M/s Tanna Agro Impax Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The vehicle was intercepted. No document in support of such movement of rise was produced. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee. In reply the assessee produced documents including Form 9 issued by Mandi Samiti, gate pass of Mandi Samiti, transit permit book No.10, serial no. 41 dated 8.11.1998 and builty issued by Motor Truck Operator Association, Saharanpur. Purchase and sale register were also produced. Books of account were also produced to show that transaction of sale amounting to Rs. 1,71,000/- was duly recorded in the account books of the assessee. Explanation so submitted was found convincing, essentially on the ground that the vehicle through which rise was being transported was shown to be a truck in the bilty, where as it was a tractor trolly.;