JUDGMENT K. L. SHARMA, J. - This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated February 2, 1994, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, in Second Appeal No. 193 of 1993 (92-93) under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act whereby the penalty imposed on the petitioner was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has therefore prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and order of the Tribunal and of the order dated January 18, 1993, passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Saharanpur imposing penalty on the petitioner. I have heard Sri R. K. Agarwal, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Sri R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the the respondent, and perused, and persued the material brought on record. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter refereed to as "the Act" which includes the U.P. Trade Tax Act) and it is a recognised contractor for supply of medicines to Government Ayurvedic Hospital and does not sell any medicines in the open market. For the assessment year 1991-92 the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officer, Allahabad, requested the petitioner that its fund financial year 1991-92 was lapsing on March 31, 1992 and in order to utilise the fund he wanted to place order for supply of specified medicines and the firm should supply the medicines against the orders against separate bill not exceeding in value of more than Rs. 5,000. The Medical Officer concerned placed orders for supply of specified medicines on March 27, 1992 and March 30, 1992. The petitioner supplied the medicines and prepared 75 bills in response to the said two orders of supplies by taking care that the value of the medicines against a bill was less than Rs. 5,000. 5,000. The Medical Officer concerned placed orders for supply of specified medicines on March 27, 1992 and March 30, 1992. The petitioner supplied the medicines and prepared 75 bills in response to the said two orders of supplies by taking care that the value of the medicines against a bill was less than Rs. 5,000. All these consignments were made on May 30, 1992 vide G.R. No. 401 from Saharanpur to Allahabad and from No. 3-D was sent along with the 75 invoices but the sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Saharanpur, intercepted the consignments on May 31, 1992, for the reason that the bilty was of March was of May 30, 1992 while the bill accompany the medicines was 27, 1992 and March 30, 1992 and on some of the bills serial numbers were printed while on other bills serial numbers were put by hand. The said consignments of medicines were put by hand. The said consignments of medicines were seized, but, later on consignments were released on furnishing case security to the extent of Rs. 55,500 and thereafter the goods were delivered to the Medical Officer. Allahabad and payments were received by the petitioner in respect of these supplies. However, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, was not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner and imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 55,500 under section 13-A of the Act. In the appeals the petitioner did not succeed and thereafter having no legal remedy under the Act, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that the petitioner sent the consignments of the medicines on May 30, 1992 to the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Allahabad, in compliance with the order of supply dated March 27, 1992 and March 30, 1992 pertaining to the financial year 1991-92. As such the order of imposition of penalty under section 13-A(4) of the Act is wholly illegal and liable to be quashed. The facts that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act to supply ayurvedic in the open market, are indisputable and it has also been proved by the documentary evidence. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, and the learned Tribunal have failed to appreciate as to how 75 separate bills were prepared in respect of the two consignments of the medicines. The Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, and the learned Tribunal have failed to appreciate as to how 75 separate bills were prepared in respect of the two consignments of the medicines. It is within the knowledge of the Government official and also the public that the funds are largely utilised in the month of March which is the closing month of the financial year. The funds sanctioned for purchase of furniture, equipment and other materials like medicines are utilised by issuing orders of supplies to the manufacturers and suppliers on the last date of the month of March; pre-receipted bills are prepared and encashed and the amount is drawn from the treasury within the financial year drafts are got prepared which are kept in safe custody until the supplies in compliance with the orders are made to the department and the payment is made on the receipt of the goods has reached the stage of notoriety. The court can take a judicial of such practice which has been followed consistently over a long period. The sales tax authorities including the Tribunal have followed this practice and in my opinion, there should not have been any difficulty this practice. The preparation of 75 bills was necessitated by the facts that the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer did not have the purchasing of more than Rs. 5,000. It is very surprising as to how it could not be understood by the learned Tribunal which remarked that it was not understandable to prepare 75 bills for the two consignments of medicines. The Consignments were accompanied by from 3-D and were duly recorded in the account books of the petitioners. The stock book of the petitioner entirely indicated the debit of the medicines against the received in the month of march 1992. The reasoning of the sales tax authorities to the effect that if the supplies of the medicines were made in the month of May, the stock book should have reflected the supplies of the medicines in the month of May instead of March. It is obvious that since the petitioner received orders of supplies in the month of March, 1992, he debited the goods in the stock for the month March, 1992. The same goods could not be debited from the stock register in the month of May, 1992 again. It is obvious that since the petitioner received orders of supplies in the month of March, 1992, he debited the goods in the stock for the month March, 1992. The same goods could not be debited from the stock register in the month of May, 1992 again. It is in the discretion of the petitioner that the he makes the entry either at the time of receiving the order of supplies or at the time of actual despatch of the consignments against the said orders. The petitioner cannot be deemed to have committed any illegality if the debit entry relating to the despatch of medicines made in May, 1992. The reason for making such a debit entry in the month of March 1992, is apparent on the face of record. In order to check the veracity of these entries the sales tax authorities including the Tribunal should have summoned the original records from the office of the Regional Ayurvedic and Unani Officer, Allahabad, but they failed to do so. However, in this writ petition this Court considered necessary in the interest of justice to summon these original records from the office concerned and these records were produced by the Medical Officer before this Court and all the entries were properly of payment verified from the book of orders and the receipt of goods and he register of payments produced by the Medical Officer. Therefore, there does not appear to be even shadow of any doubt regarding the truthfulness of the transaction made by the petitioner as a registered dealer. The findings to the contrary recorded by the assessing authority and the Tribunal are therefore not sustained on the basis of evidence. Section 13-A(4) of the Act Provides for imposition of penalty only when (i) that the transaction is not traceable to a bona fide dealer and the goods are not properly recorded in the account books or the documents accompanying the consignment. Admittedly the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and is only a Government supplier and does not sell the medicines in the open market. The medicines have been supplied to the Government to the Government department after receiving proper orders of supplies and the supplies and the payments have been made by the Government department. Therefore, it is proved that the goods been sold to traceable bona fide dealer. The medicines have been supplied to the Government to the Government department after receiving proper orders of supplies and the supplies and the payments have been made by the Government department. Therefore, it is proved that the goods been sold to traceable bona fide dealer. There is no omission of entries the goods in the books of the dealer and also in the documents accompanying the consignments which were intercepted by the Sales Tax Officer. As such the provision of section 13-A(4) of the Act are not applicable to such consignments. Therefore the imposition of penalty by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, on the petitioner in respect of the consignments of medicines was not at all justified legally. The objection that the bilty indicated the date May 30, 1992, whereas the consignments were despatched on May 31, 1992, from Saharanpur to Allahabad is not at all substantial so as to create any doubt about the dealer or about the entries in the bilty accompanying the consignments. The imposition of penalty on such minor and trifling objection cannot be justified, as it is a punishment which cannot be inflicted on the dealer otherwise than on the grounds mentioned in the section itself. Such objections will have to be verified in the light of the explanation and the material or evidence produced by the dealer. Surprisingly enough that the sales tax authorities have not properly acted in this regard and have imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 55,500 on the without any legal and factual ground. Therefore, I find that the contention raised by the learned counsel section 13-A(4) of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. The amount of penalty deposited by the petitioner is liable to be refunded with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. The judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be quashed. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is hereby allowed with costs of this writ petition assessed at Rs. 2,500 payable by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. The judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be quashed. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is hereby allowed with costs of this writ petition assessed at Rs. 2,500 payable by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. A writ of certiorari is hereby issued quashing the judgment and order dated February 2, 1994, passed by Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur Bench, Saharanpur, in Second Appeal No. 93 of 1993 (92-93) and also the order dated January 18, 1993, passed by the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, Saharanpur in Case No. 1186, imposing penalty of Rs. 55,500 on the petitioner under section No. 2 shall refund the sum of Rs. 55,500 along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The amounts of costs, penalty and interest shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition allowed.