YASHWANT VARMA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) This revision arises out of proceedings of seizure and imposition of penalty under the provisions of U.P. VAT Act, 2008. The circumstances which weighed with the authority in imposition of penalty was that the revisionist deliberately and with intent used "magic ink" while filling Form 21 so as to ensure particulars would not be legible or at least be rendered unreadable after sometime. The finding of fact which stands recorded in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal in Second Appeal reads thus: "The assessing authority had imposed the penalty writing that magic ink was used while filling from -21. He also opined that pen using magic ink is not available normally with a person and unless it is procured for being used for a specific purpose then only this pen can be obtained and the assessee had intentionally used magic ink pen while filling the from -21 and assessee had also not shown any evidence regarding payment of the transaction. Copy of ledger was also not supplied; the photostat of purchase order, which was submitted did not contain the TIN of the purchasing dealer nor any evidence regarding the registration of the purchasing dealer was provided. Accordingly, rejecting the explanation, the penalty was imposed."
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist was unable to draw the attention of the Court to any material evidence or averment which may establish that the conclusion so drawn and recorded by the Tribunal was perverse or against the material evidence on record. Although, the learned counsel for the revisionist has sought to rely upon certain documents appearing on page 27 of the paper book, there is no averment in the Affidavit that this material document was in fact filed.;