JUDGMENT PANKAJ MITHAL :- The assessee/revisionist is a registered dealer of Allahabad engaged in the business of food-grains. The aforesaid dealer had placed an order for supply of 290 bags of groundnuts to a dealer of Madhya Pradesh at Sagar. The Madhya Pradesh dealer despatched the aforesaid goods through a transporter M.P. Delhi Roadlines. The said consignment was intercepted at Shreenagar-Mahoba check-post while entering U.P. and the goods were detained. A show-cause notice was issued on December 27, 2001 as to why the goods may not be seized on one of the grounds that it was not accompanied by form XXXI. The dealer submitted reply on December 29, 2001 along with form XXXI. The form XXXI so produced was not accepted and the goods were seized which were directed to be released on furnishing security. Penalty proceedings under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act were also drawn against the dealer for importing goods in contravention of provisions of section 28A of the Act. The assessing authority vide order dated March 22, 2002 imposed the penalty which was reduced in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). On further appeal to the Trade Tax Tribunal the penalty was reduced to Rs. 18,680 vide order dated March 3, 2003. It is against the aforesaid order of penalty passed by the Tribunal that this revision has been preferred. I have heard Sri Kunwar Saksena, learned counsel for the assessee/revisionist and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel. Sri Saksena has submitted that penalty can be levied under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act only if the dealer is found to have contravened the provisions of section 28A of the Act coupled with the fact that there is an attempt to evade payment of tax. In reply, Sri Pandey has defended the order of the Tribunal on the ground that there was clear cut contravention of section 28A of the Act inasmuch as the goods at the time of seizure were not accompanied by form XXXI and the trip sheet and as there were discrepancies in the bilti. Therefore, under the circumstances the inference drawn by the authorities as well as the Tribunal that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax cannot be faulted with. Therefore, under the circumstances the inference drawn by the authorities as well as the Tribunal that there was an attempt to evade payment of tax cannot be faulted with. Section 28A of the Act prescribes that a person who intends to import any goods into the State of U.P. from outside shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration from the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area. It further provides, where such goods are consigned by road the importer shall furnish to the consignor the declaration in the prescribed form and the driver or the person in-charge of the vehicle carrying such goods shall carry with him the copies of such declaration duly verified by the consignor in the prescribed manner together with such other documents as may be prescribed. Rule 83 of the Rules framed under the Act prescribes for carrying the following documents : (i) declaration in form XXXI; (ii) cash-memo/challan or bill; and (iii) authorisation of transit of goods (trip sheet). The aforesaid section 28A read with Rules also lays down that the driver of the vehicle or the person in charge shall make available the vehicle to the officer in charge of the check-post or barrier and allow him to search the vehicle and inspect the goods and produce all documents required to be carried. It also authorises the officer to seize the goods, if he is satisfied that the goods were being transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax. The penalty provision of section 15A(1)(o) of the Act is attracted where the assessing officer is satisfied that the dealer has imported or transported or has attempted to import or transport any goods in contravention of the provisions of section 28A of the Act with an attempt to evade tax. In Ashish Trading Company, Agra v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2009] 22 VST 279; [2007] 45 STR 294 this court in considering penalty provisions of section 15A(1)(o) read with section 28A of the Act vis-a-vis non-obtaining the declaration in form XXXI, held that levy of penalty merely because no declaration form was produced cannot be sustained. In Ashish Trading Company, Agra v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2009] 22 VST 279; [2007] 45 STR 294 this court in considering penalty provisions of section 15A(1)(o) read with section 28A of the Act vis-a-vis non-obtaining the declaration in form XXXI, held that levy of penalty merely because no declaration form was produced cannot be sustained. In ITI Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow [2011] 41 VST 30 (All); [2010] UPTC 643 the court has laid down that where form XXXI was not initially produced but was subsequently furnished before the seizure the imposition of penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the Act is not justified. A similar view was expressed in another decision of this court Interarch Building Product Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in [2011] 40 VST 133 (All); [2010] UPTC 503. In this case the form XXXI was produced by assessee/dealer before passing seizure order and the court held, in the circumstances, that intention to evade tax was not reflected so as to attract the penalty provision. In Multitex Filtration Engineering Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P., Lucknow [2009] 40 NTN 389 his Lordship of this court relying upon a Division Bench decision in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd., Ghaziabad v. State of U.P. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All); [1983] UPTC 183, held that the attempt to evade tax is a mandatory precondition for seizure of goods and for levy of penalty and the intention to evade tax cannot be inferred merely for the reason that the goods are not accompanied by the requisite declaration or that certain columns in the form have not been filled up. In the case in hand the basic ground for levying penalty is that the form XXXI was not available with the goods and in the bilti the name of the parties were subsequently filled up. It was on the basis of the aforesaid that an inference was drawn that the assessee/dealer attempted to evade tax. It is admitted on record that before the seizure, when the show-cause notice was given, form XXXI was produced by the assessee/dealer along with the reply. The said production of form XXXI and other documents was voluntarily. Therefore, when such documents were produced voluntarily before actual order of seizure being passed it cannot be inferred that the assessee/dealer attempted to evade the tax. The said production of form XXXI and other documents was voluntarily. Therefore, when such documents were produced voluntarily before actual order of seizure being passed it cannot be inferred that the assessee/dealer attempted to evade the tax. Accordingly, the inference so drawn and the finding that there was an attempt to evade tax has no legs to stand, specially in the light of the above-referred various decisions. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question raised in this revision as to whether the levy of penalty under section 15A(1)(o) was justified, is answered in favour of the assessee/dealer and against the Revenue and it is held that as there was no attempt to evade payment of tax, the penalty could not have been imposed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned orders dated March 3, 2003 passed by the Tribunal, September 21, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and March 22, 2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) are set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.