Alok Mathur, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) By means of aforesaid revisions the revisionists have assailed the order of Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench 2, Lucknow dated 31.01.2002 whereby the order of the First Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner Appeal) Trade Tax dated 21.09.1996 has been upheld.
(3.) In these revisions following questions of law are involved : "(i) Whether in view of the fact that alongwith the application a list has also been filed in which electrical goods and machineries were mentioned. Trade Tax Officer while disposing of the registration application has signed the list. With the intent to make list as a part of the registration certificate. As per manual the list is the part of the registration certificate, and therefore, it can not be said that the applicant was not registered for electrical goods and machineries. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty? (iii) Whether penalty is based on relevant material and legally justified? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant has able to make out a case of a bonafide belief and reasonable cause? (v) Whether in view of the fact that there was no mens-era or willful intention to commit any default and inasmuch as applicant has made out the case of bonafide, Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty? (vi) Whether the amount of penalty is legally justified and based on material?";