JUDGMENT BHARATI SAPRU :- Heard learned counsel for the assessee and learned standing counsel for the State. This revision has been filed by the assessee under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated March 20, 2006. The questions of law referred to are hereunder : "(1) Whether, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this honourable court in the case of Aster Technologies (P) Limited, the order passed by the Trade Tax is justified ? (2) Whether in view of the judgment of this honourable court in the case of Precision Equipments v. Commissioner Trade Tax and Western India Enterprises Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal affirming the penalty is justified ? (3) Whether in view of form XXXI of the railway which was produced subsequently, the imposition of penalty is justified ? (4) Whether the applicant have produced all relevant documents at the entry check-post and in view of the judgment of the honourable court in the case of Radha Ballabh Satish Chandra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2007] 7 VST 555 (All) can it be said that there was any attempt to evade tax ? (5) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal is justified ?" By the impugned order the Tribunal has imposed the penalty on the assessee under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 2000-01. The facts of the case are that the applicant entered into a contract with the East Central Railway from its Kolkata office for supply, installation and commissioning of SDH equipment with all accessories. In pursuance of the said agreement the applicant was required to supply the goods at the site Sasaram Nokhla Section in the Mughalsarai Division of the East Central Railway. In compliance with the agreement the assessee placed a purchase order to M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies for supply of 30 kms. optical fibre cable. In the purchase order it was mentioned specifically that the consignee was to be SSE/Works/Mughalsarai, East Central Railway. In pursuance of this contract the assessee had asked the East Central Railway, Mughalsarai to send the import declaration form XXXI for purchase in question to M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies, Silvassa, Dadra Nagar, Haveli. optical fibre cable. In the purchase order it was mentioned specifically that the consignee was to be SSE/Works/Mughalsarai, East Central Railway. In pursuance of this contract the assessee had asked the East Central Railway, Mughalsarai to send the import declaration form XXXI for purchase in question to M/s. Sterlite Optical Technologies, Silvassa, Dadra Nagar, Haveli. The goods which were coming from Silvassa, Haveli, were intercepted at the entry check-post at Chauphatka, Allahabad. The said goods were coming in a truck along with the invoice of the consignor. Although the goods were accompanying by form XXXV but form XXXI was not available. The goods seized, were valued at Rs. 38,86,606 and a security was demanded in cash. The assessee moved an application under section 13A(6) along with form XXXI of the East Central Railway. The security was reduced and the goods were released. Thereafter the penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee and a penalty order was passed on October 12, 2004 converting the security into the penalty. The assessee filed a first appeal which was dismissed and thereafter a second appeal was filed by the assessee. The Trade Tax Tribunal has dismissed the second appeal by the order dated March 20, 2006. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned standing counsel and I have also perused the material on record. It has come on the record that form XXXI was produced by the assessee immediately before the seizure and thereupon the goods were released and form XXXI had been supplied by the East Central Railway which had placed the order. The railway is no doubt a Government organisation and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal and the first appellate authority that there was an intention to evade the tax is not borne out from the material on the record as it is not denied by these two authorities that a form XXXI duly filled by the railways was produced immediately before the seizure of the goods had been released upon the furnishing of some security. In these circumstances I am of the opinion, that the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal and the first appellate authority is not correct and the penalty imposed under section 15A(1) is not justified. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the penalty imposed is deleted. The revision is allowed.