JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. - Present six revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated March 9, 2004 relating to the assessment years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 by which the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 8D(6) of the Act. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revisions are that the dealer - opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") was engaged in the business of purchases and sales of truck chassis. During the years under consideration, the dealer had purchased body from various persons and got it mounted over the chassis. The assessing authority levied the penalty under section 8D(6) of the Act on the ground that the dealer had got the body constructed over the chassis from the contractor under the works contract and, therefore, while making the payment to the contractor should have deducted four per cent and should have deposited the same in the State treasury as required under section 8D(1) of the Act. Since the dealer had not complied with the provisions of section 8D(1) and had not made deduction from the payment to the contractor inasmuch as not deposited the amount with the State Treasury, the dealer was held liable for penalty under section 8D(6) of the Act. The claim of the dealer was that it had purchased body and had not got the body constructed over the chassis under the works contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 8D(1) of the Act was not applicable. This plea of the dealer was not accepted by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved by the penalty orders passed under section 8D(6) of the Act, the dealer filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra vide order dated March 10, 2002 dismissed all the appeals. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Agra, dealer filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the appeals and set aside the penalty. The Tribunal held that the dealer had purchased the body and had not got it constructed over the chassis, under the works contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 8D(1) of the Act was not applicable. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed all the appeals and set aside the penalty. The Tribunal held that the dealer had purchased the body and had not got it constructed over the chassis, under the works contract and, therefore, the provisions of section 8D(1) of the Act was not applicable. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Sri R. R. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer - opposite party. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the body was got constructed over the chassis through the contractor and in this regard the contract was a composite indivisible contract for the supply of material and labour. Since it was constructed over the chassis, the contract was in the nature of works contract. He submitted that the contract being in the nature of works contract, the dealer was under the obligation to deduct the tax from the payment to the contractor. The learned counsel for the dealer submitted that the apex court in the case of T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras reported in [1975] 35 STC 24 has held that the construction of the body over the chassis is the sale of body and not in pursuance of works contract. He submitted that predominant object was to purchase the body and, therefore, there was a sale of bus body by the party to the dealer and the purchase of such body by the dealer. He submitted that the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is the finding of fact which does not require any interference. He submitted that under section 8D(1) of the Act the liability to deduct the amount was to the extent of amount of tax chargeable on a valuable consideration of the goods. Section 3F of the Act was the charging section which provided levy of tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contract. Section 3F of the Act which was introduced initially in the year, 1987 was declared ultra vires by the Division Bench of this court in the case of V. K. Singhal v. State of U.P. reported in [1995] 97 STC 355; [1995] UPTC 337, thus, no tax was chargeable and, thus, in case, if the amount has not been deducted it cannot be said that there was defiance of section 8D(1) of the Act. He submitted that of section 3F of the Act which was re-enacted by Act No. 31 of 1995 with retrospective effect contemplates levy of tax on the value of the goods involved in the execution of works contract, the provisions of section 8D(6) of the Act cannot be invoked retrospectively. He further submitted that it was highly disputed and debatable whether the nature of contract was works contract or contract for sale and if under the bona fide belief that the contract was in the nature of sale and not works contract the dealer has not deducted the tax under section 8D(1) of the Act, penalty under section 8D(6) of the Act cannot be levied. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has held that the dealer had purchased the body and got it mounted over the chassis and it is not a case of works contract, placing reliance on the decision of the apex court in the case of T.V. Sundram Iyengar & Sons v. State of Madras reported in [1975] 35 STC 24. Finding of the Tribunal is finding of fact. In any view of the matter whether the contract was works contract or the contract for sale was highly debatable and, therefore, if under the bona fide belief that the contract was for sale of body and not works contract the tax has not been deducted under section 8D(1), penalty could not be levied under section 8D(6) of the Act, as there was no deliberate or wilful defiance on the part of the dealer. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1970] 25 STC 211 and in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax reported in [2007] 291 ITR 519, the apex court held that the penalty proceedings are of quasi-criminal nature and in the absence of any deliberate and wilful defiance, penalty should not be levied. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is upheld. In the result, all the six revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed.