JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar :- This is a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order of the Tribunal dated November 27, 2003 for the assessment year 2001-02. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the applicant is engaged in the business of buying and selling of bitumen, etc., and is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The applicant claimed to have sold 9 M.T. bitumen to M/s. M.K.S. Construction Company Private Limited, North Civil Lines, Jabalpur, against bill No. 79 dated March 1, 2002. The aforesaid goods were booked with M/s. Chaudhary Transport Commission Agency, Gate No. 1, Mathura Refinery, Mathura vide G.R. No. 698 dated March 1, 2002. The goods were loaded on March 1, 2002 in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408. The case of the applicant is that M/s. M.K.S. Construction Company Private Limited, North Civil Lines, Jabalpur had purchased bitumen from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mathura vide bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002. Such bitumen was loaded in Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 but due to break down of the said tanker, it was reloaded in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408 in which the goods sold by the applicant were loaded. When Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408 was en route from Agra to Jabalpur, it was intercepted on March 2, 2002 at Jhansi by the trade tax authorities (SIB). The goods thereafter were seized and subsequently released on furnishing security at Rs. 80,000. In pursuance of the seizure of the goods, penalty proceeding under section 13A(4) of the Act was initiated. The applicant filed a reply to the notice. The assessing authority, being not satisfied with the reply passed the penalty order on August 21, 2002, imposed a sum of Rs. 80,000 as penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), which has been dismissed vide order dated February 3, 2003. Aggrieved against, the applicant filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated November 27, 2003. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel. Aggrieved against, the applicant filed a second appeal before the Tribunal, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated November 27, 2003. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel. The Tribunal has confirmed the penalty on the ground that at the time of road checking on March 2, 2002, Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408 was intercepted. On inquiry, bitumen was found loaded in the tanker. The driver of the tanker produced G.R. No. 597 dated March 1, 2002, issued by M/s. Chaudhary Transport Commission Agency, Gate No. 1, Mathura and bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002 of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mathura. The driver has told that the goods were being carried on from the office of the transporter situated at Kamla Nagar, Agra to Jabalpur. Apart from the aforesaid documents, no other documents were produced. The khalasi of the tanker in his statement has stated that the goods had been loaded from Mathura refinery in this tanker and no goods of any other tanker had been loaded. 19.310 M.T. bitumen was found loaded in the tanker. Invoice No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002 claimed to have been issued for the goods of tanker No. U.A. C-9078 was not found. The assessing authority had seized the goods on the ground that the bill, which was produced, was not related to the goods loaded in the vehicle and, therefore, it was inferred that the goods were being transported without any document. The entire goods had been treated to be belonging to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Jabalpur party had purchased 10.310 M.T. bitumen from Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 9 M.T. bitumen from the applicant. The goods purchased from the applicant were loaded in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408. Since the vehicle in which 10.310 M.T. bitumen was loaded subjected to break down en route from Mathura to Jabalpur, the goods of the said vehicle were transferred in Tanker No. U.P. 81-D-4408 and unfortunately the bill relating to such bitumen issued by the applicant could not be produced before the authority concerned at the time of inspection. The documents relating to 9 M.T. bitumen was produced before the assessing authority and the entries of such goods in the books of account have also been shown. The documents relating to 9 M.T. bitumen was produced before the assessing authority and the entries of such goods in the books of account have also been shown. On these facts, it is not the case of omission of entry of goods in the books of account. Thus, the penalty is liable to be set aside. The learned standing counsel submitted that the documents relating to the goods were not produced by the driver at the time of inspection of the goods. In Tanker No. U.P. 81-D-4408 19.310 M.T. bitumen was found loaded. The vehicle was inspected on March 2, 2002. At the time of inspection, bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002, issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in respect of 10.310 M.T. bitumen was produced. In the bill, Tanker No. U.A.C. - 9078 was mentioned. The driver of the vehicle had not produced any bill issued by the applicant in respect of 9 M.T. bitumen. At the time of inspection, it was not told that the goods of Tanker No. U.A.C. - 9078 had been transferred to Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408. The bill of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited was dated February 14, 2002 and the goods were inspected on March 2, 2002. Therefore, it was not believable that the bill relates to the goods loaded in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408. In the circumstances, the authorities below have rightly inferred that the goods were being transported without documents. He submitted that the applicant was not able to show the entries of 19.310 M.T. bitumen in the books of account. The entry of only 9 M.T. bitumen was claimed to have been recorded in the books of account. Therefore, all the authorities below have rightly held that 19.310 M.T. bitumen was transported without any document and such goods were not found entered in the books of account, documents or register and accordingly the penalty has rightly been levied. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. Therefore, all the authorities below have rightly held that 19.310 M.T. bitumen was transported without any document and such goods were not found entered in the books of account, documents or register and accordingly the penalty has rightly been levied. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below. None of the authorities below has accepted the explanation put forward by the applicant that it has sold only 9 M.T. bitumen against bill No. 79 dated March 1, 2002 which was being transported in Tanker No. U.P. 81 D-4408 from Agra to Jabalpur and further 10.310 M.T. bitumen was loaded in the said tanker at Mathura, which was purchased by Jabalpur party from Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 had been subjected to break down. Admittedly, at the time of inspection, neither the bill of 19.310 M.T. bitumen was produced nor the bill of 9 M.T. bitumen, claimed to have been sold by the applicant, was produced. Bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and G.R. No. 597 dated March 1, 2002 were produced. In bill No. 7924318 dated February 14, 2002, Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 was mentioned. There was nothing to show that the said bill and bilties relate to the goods loaded in the tanker. The driver and khalasi of the tanker in their statements have not stated that the goods of Tanker No. U.A.C. 9078 have been loaded in Tanker Mo. U.P. 81 D-4408. Admittedly, the entries of 19.310 M.T. bitumen, found at the time of inspection, was not found entered in the books of account of the applicant. In the circumstances, levy of penalty under section 13A(4) of the Act cannot be said to be unjustified. On the facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The revision fails and is dismissed.