JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J. - By means of the present writ petition under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the petitioner who is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act has sought to challenge 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 challan No. 7, 14 drums of spearmint oil weighing 2,520 kgs. by truck No. U.P. 24A/6670. By another challan No. 8 of the same day it dispatched 10 drums of shivalik oil weighing 1,800 kgs. and pipretta oil 4 drums weighing 720 kgs. through truck No. D.L. 1LB/907. The goods were intercepted by the Department and on verification different goods were found in truck No. U.P. 24A/6670. Shivalik oil and pipretta oil were found instead of spearmint oil therein. The goods were seized and were got released subsequently on payment of security amount. Subsequent thereto proceedings for levying penalty was initiated under section 13A(4) of the Act against the applicant. A pre-penalty notice was served on the applicant by the assessing officer. The explanation furnished in response to the show-cause notice 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 Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the levy of penalty under section 13A(4) is unjustified as the goods in question were properly accounted for in the account books and were traceable to bona fide dealer. It was due to human error that the different goods were loaded in the truck in question for which no penalty should have been levied. It was due to human error that the different goods were loaded in the truck in question for which no penalty should have been levied. The learned standing counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are essentially findings of fact and there is no perversity therein. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The explanation furnished by the applicant - dealer that due to human error specially of palledars goods other than the one 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 authority who has reduced the quantum of the penalty has found that the vehicle in question was carrying the goods other than mentioned in the challan. The driver of the vehicle showed his reluctance and refused to carry the vehicle in question to the office of the Trade Tax Department. The mobile squad took the police help to drive the vehicle to the office of the Department. These facts repel the contention of the dealer - applicant that it was a case of human error. On the contrary, they are indicative of the fact that even the driver on the vehicle was aware that there is something wrong with the goods loaded in his vehicle when he was caught by the mobile squad. The fact that the applicant got the goods released by furnishing security without lodging any protest or representation as provided for 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 well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. 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 well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. The penalty to the tune of 150 per cent of the tax amount has been maintained by the first appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal. There is no previous record of the applicant and the quantum of penalty appears to be a bit excessive. It is reduced to the amount of the tax. A further relief, thus, of Rs. 48,000 is granted by reducing the amount of penalty to rupees one lakh. In this view of the matter, the question No. 5 as framed in the memo of appeal is decided partly in favour of the assessee and partly against the Department by holding that levy of penalty to the tune of rupees one lack will serve the interest of justice. The revision is allowed in part as indicated above.