JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 28.10.1996 by which the Tribunal has allowed the appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 and quashed the penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o).
2. The brief facts of the cast giving rise to the present revision are that on 26.12.1994, opposite party was found transporting 125 bags of Haldi and 118 bags of Supari in Vehicle No. MP-20/0214. At the time of road checking at Sindwari Belaghat Road by the Trade Tax Officer, driver of the Vehicle could rot produce any documents relating to goods However, documents relating to the goods were submitted subsequently and was explained that both the aforesaid goods have been imported from outside the State of U.P. against declaration Form which were duly passed at Sitapur Check Post on 25.12.1994 and thereafter, from Banda Godown, goods was being transported to Kanpur. The officer concerned found that the documents which were submitted related to 125 bags of Haldi and 121 bags of Supari while only 125 bags Haldi and 118 bags of Supari were found. Though, the opposite party explained that three bags out of 121 bags inadvertently left at Banda. but the authority concern had not accepted the plea of dealer and had seized 118 bags of Supari. However, 125 bags of Haldi were released. Against the seizure order, opposite party filed application under the proviso of Section 13-A (6) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. Check Post which was rejected. Thereafter opposite party filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the seizure order. In pursuance of seizure, Assessing Authority levied penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o). First Appeal filed by the opposite party was rejected. Opposite party tiled Second Appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed. Tribunal held that with regard to the shortage of three bags of Supari, Tribunal has accepted the explanation of the opposite party and quashed the seizure. Tribunal further held that there was no jusification to levy penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Heard Counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the seizure of 118 bags of Supari and subsequently, penalty levied under Section 15-A. (1) (o) was justified and the Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty. He submitted that the documents which were produced, were relating to 121 bags of Supari and not relating to 118 bags of Supari, therefore, Officer concern had rightly treated that the documents did not relates to 118 bags of Supari. Learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that both Haldi as well as Supari were imported together from outside the State of U. P. against Form 31 and they were found cleared from Sitapur Check Post on 25.12.1994. He submitted that the Mobile Squad had not drawn any adverse inference in respect of Haldi. He submitted that three bags of Supari were inadvertently left at Banda Godown and the explanation was accepted by the Tribunal. He submitted that against the order of Tribunal, no revision has been filed and the order of Tribunal has become final so far as the seizure of goods are concerned and therefore, there is no error in the order of Tribunal;
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below. 1 do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Tribunal has accepted the explanation about the shortage of three bags of Supari. Tribunal has also accepted that the documents, which were produced before the authority concern, were relating to the goods. This is a finding of fact. This finding has not been challenged by the Revenue and has become final. Once it is found that the goods have been imported from outside the State of U. P. against declaration Form which was passed at Sitapur Check Post on 25.12.1994 and the alleged documents submitted before the authority concern, were relating to the impugned goods, there was no case of an attempt to evade tax.
6. In the result, revision fails, and is, accordingly dismissed.