JUDGMENT MS. BHARATI SAPRU, J. - Heard learned counsel for the revisionist Shri Alok Kumar, and learned counsel for the State. The present revision has been filed by the assessee against an order of the Tribunal dated January 22, 2004 passed under section 10 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority dated August 1, 2000 and has maintained the imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs. 38,250 under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the transaction of assessment year 1998-99. I have heard learned counsel for the assessee at length as well as learned counsel for the department and I have also perused the orders of the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority. The assessee, Kamal Oil Mills contends that they purchased soya refined oil from Neel Kamal Trading Company on February 20, 1999 by giving an advance. The other facts are that soya bean oil was imported from Indore and was going towards destination Kanpur. The story of the assessee is that he purchased soyabean oil from one trader Neel Kamal Trading Company. While the goods were in transit, the goods were intercepted on February 24, 1999. They were detained at Jhansi. At the time when the goods were detained, not a single paper was found to be accompanied with the goods. The driver of the truck gave a statement that while the driver was eating his food at the roadside hotel, the papers had been lost. The other admitted fact which also emerges from the record is that at the time when the goods were detained on February 24, 1999, the goods were not accompanied with "form XXXI". It is also admitted by the assessee that subsequently, "form XXXI" was issued on February 27, 1999 and it was produced before the authority on March 17, 1999 along with other papers. There is nothing on record to show that it was the intention of the assessee to purchase the goods after due completion of the formality of obtaining "Form XXXI". There is nothing on record to show that it was the intention of the assessee to purchase the goods after due completion of the formality of obtaining "Form XXXI". The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that "form XXXI" was produced subsequently on March 17, 1999 along with the reply and that itself was sufficient to establish that there was no intention to evade tax and, therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of section 28A of the Act and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 15A(1)(o) was not justified. The Tribunal has also recorded that at first, the driver of the truck gave one version with regard to the loosing of the papers and, thereafter, gave an affidavit on court stating a completely different story. The Tribunal has, therefore, not believed the driver's story. The assessee has also not established the factum of having obtained/applied form XXXI at the proper time or having produced it at the proper time. The Tribunal has, therefore, also not believed the assessee for his reason. The Tribunal has recorded that two things were not complete in the transaction. Firstly, "form XXXI" was not there and secondly, not a single other paper or document was found with the truck with goods at the time of detention on February 24, 1999. This fact cannot be disputed by the assessee and in fact has not been disputed by the assessee. The assessee has in fact, clearly stated the fact that "form XXXI" which was obtained by him was produced after 25 days. The Tribunal has, therefore, drawn conclusion rightly that in such facts and circumstances, the intention to evade tax was there and has, therefore, imposed penalty under section 15A(1)(o). The learned Standing Counsel has argued that the imposition of penalty in this case is justified on account of the fact that not a single paper or document relating to the goods was found with the truck at the time of detention. The learned Standing Counsel has argued that the imposition of penalty in this case is justified on account of the fact that not a single paper or document relating to the goods was found with the truck at the time of detention. The learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention of this court to a decision of the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007] 9 VST 1; [2005] 10 JT SC 5 wherein the Supreme Court has held that even though there was a declaration form accompanying with the goods, but in that case, it was not duly filled, would be a good reason to come to the conclusion that there was an intention to evade tax and held that in that case, there was a contravention of the required rule. The purpose of having a declaration form is to identify the goods and the transactions. Unless there is a clear description of the goods, which are being imported, it would be so easy to manipulate any deal later on. The apex court has also taken note of the fact that if such blank declaration forms are taken into consideration, it would become possible for the assessee to circulate the same form again and again which would result in the loss of the revenue. Therefore, it is imperative that the goods which are being transported/imported must carry with them proper declaration forms and a proper description of the goods, which are being imported. Having heard the matter at length and having examined it in detail, I am of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal suffers from no error of law and no question of law arises in this revision. The imposition of penalty in the present case under section 15A(1)(o) is fully justified. This revision is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.