Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) THE present revision under Section 11 of the Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") is filed against the order of the Tribunal dated February 13, 2006, passed in Second Appeal No. 53 of 2005 filed by the trader against the levy of penalty under Section 13A(4) of the Act., relating to the assessment year 2003 -04.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the applicant is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of foodgrains on his own account as well as on commission. The said business is registered under Section 8A of the Act. On June 28, 2003, the business premises of the applicant was surveyed by a team of Special Investigation Branch (SIB), Trade Tax, Bareilly which found 180 quintals of foodgrains in 180 bags, were being loaded on a truck No. HR 046/9342, and 926 quintals of wheats were stored at a nearby godown. In all 1,056 bags were found. For verification of the said stock, books of account were asked for, but they were informed that it was locked in an almirah, and the owner Atul Kumar Mishra has gone out to Shahjahanpur along with keys, therefore, the stock at the time of survey could not be verified from the books of account. A show -cause notice under Section 13A(3) of the Act was issued. The explanation offered was not accepted. The goods were seized and penalty under Section 13A(4) of the Act, for a sum of Rs. 50,688, was levied. Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Bareilly, which was dismissed vide order dated June 2, 2005. Further aggrieved, the applicant filed a second appeal before the Trade Tax Tribunal which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated February 13, 2006.
(3.) THE question of law framed in this revision is as follows: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was justified? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty under Section 13A(4) of the Act was justified?;