Ashok Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P.
(2.) The present revision has been preferred against the order of the Trade Tax Tribunal dated 5.6.2007, by which, the Tribunal upheld the penalty order passed under Section 15-A(i)(c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1981.
(3.) Following questions of law are referred by the Assessee for the opinion of this Court:- Substantial Questions of Law:- "I. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessing authority has held that it is inter-State sale, then whether he is justified in imposing penalty under Section 15-A (1) (c) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act ? II. Whether the order dated 31.03.2005, passed by the assessing authority, is of without jurisdiction and is illegal and learned Tribunal has failed to apply it's mind and has wrongly rejected the appeal of the revisionist? III. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the action of the assessing authority was justified when the revisionist has disclosed his turnover in the books of account, which is Exhibit-15, before the assessing authority at the time of SIB inspection and the learned assessing authority has proceeded with the presumption that it is a case of concealment of turnover and imposed the penalty of Rs. 01,97,016/-, which is not justified ? IV. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the 1 the Act case the revisionist has proved his case that it was a case of stock transfer according to entries made in the books of account and the revisionist has never furnished any wrong information and the assessing authority was justified in imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 01,97,016/- ? V. Whether according to Section 15-A (1) (C) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 the department has discharged its burden of proving the concealment of the turnover by the revisionist. The relevant facts and circumstances of the case shows that the assessing authority has failed to discharge the same. VI. Whether the revisionist has proved his case that he has not evaded tax and the conduct of the revisionist was bona fide from the facts and circumstances and evidence which were available before the assessing authority, Joint Commissioner (Appeal) and the Tribunal to the effect that the revisionist has not made Inter-State sale, but has made the sale by way of stock transfer to its ex U.P. consignee agents, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 15-A (1) (C) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is not justified and the assessment order and the order of all the authority below suffer from illegality. ;