9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenge the order dated March 31, 2003 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 205 of 2001 for the assessment year 1998-99 relating to penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act. The applicant is having its head office at Badaun and branch office at Civil Lines. According to it, it is maintaining the account books in the regular course of business. On June 24, 1988 it dispatched vide cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was not found satisfactory and penalty amounting to Rs. 2,21,000 was levied by the assessing officer vide order dated May 31, 1999. Against this order the appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part by reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 1,48,000 vide order dated November 7, 2000. The said order has been confirmed in further appeal by the Tribunal by the order under revision. Shri Piyush A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in challan were loaded in the truck in question, has not been found acceptable by all the three authorities below. The said finding, thus, is essentially a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in the present revision. At this stage, the learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of the court towards the order of the first appellate authority. The first appellate authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or under the Act itself shows that the applicant had no defence and the finding in this regard by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. So far as the quantum of penalty is concerned, the Tribunal has not given any reasoning for upholding the quantum as modified by the first appellate authority. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a bona fide registered dealer under the Provincial Act as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
