ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Piyush Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Standing counsel for the respondent.
(2.) This revision is directed against an order passed by the Tribunal dated 7.1.2011, whereby, the imposition of penalty under Section 48 (5) of the U.P. VAT Act has been confirmed. Thus aggrieved, revisionist is before this Court.
(3.) The revisionist is a registered dealer in the State, and is engaged in manufacture of mustered oil and has various depots through out the State. Transfer of certain quantity of mustered oil as stock transfer, is the bone of contention herein. According to the department such movement was not a stock transfer, but was a sale made to a third party.;