JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned Counsel for the assessee and Sri B.K.Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This revision has been filed by the State against an order passed by the Tribunal dated 7.1.2011 by which the Tribunal has imposed a penalty on the assessee for non-filling of Column-6 in From-38 in respect of the goods such as Trolleys, tyres and other wooden items, which were being transported from Rajpura (Punjab). The goods were on a onward journey from Rajpura (Punjab) to Agra and were intercepted by the Mobile Squad, Commercial Tax, Agra who passed a seizure order on 2.8.2009 demanding the security of Rs. 22,000/-. The security was deposited and the goods were released, thereafter, penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 54(1) (14) of U.P. VAT Act. The assessee gave his reply and a penalty order was passed on 26.9.2009. 3. Against the penalty order, the assessee filed a first appeal, which was rejected on 16.4.2010. Against the order dated 16.4.2010 the revisionist filed a second appeal, which too was dismissed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Agra on 7.1.2011. The following questions of law have been sought by the revisionist : “(1) Whether in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rama Pulses v. State of U.P. (supra), the dealer had attempted to evade tax and avoid assessment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act has to be made out as a condition precedent by the Revenue before imposing penalty under Section 54 (1) 14) of the VAT Act? (2) Whether in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. (supra) the imposition of penalty is justified? (3) Whether the judgment of the Single Judge in the case of Multitex Fabrication Engineering Ltd. (supra) has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Rama Pulses (supra), still the imposition of penalty upon the applicant is justified? (4) Whether admittedly the applicant had imported the trolley with four tyres and handles which is an asset of the applicant company and the applicant is not a trader of the said goods in question, still the imposition of penalty is justified? (4) Whether admittedly the applicant had imported the trolley with four tyres and handles which is an asset of the applicant company and the applicant is not a trader of the said goods in question, still the imposition of penalty is justified? (5) Whether in absence of any discrepancy found in quality, quantity or item accompanying the goods, merely column No. 6 in Form-38 was not duly filled, the imposition of penalty in view of the Division Bench judgement of Rama Pulses (supra) and Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. (supra) is justified ? (6) Whether the applicant had cited three judgement of the Tribunal inter parties with regard to dropping of penalty proceedings wherein column No. 6 of Form-38 was not filled, still the Tribunal was justified in taking a different view in the impugned order? (7) Whether in view of the judgement of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Associate Distributors Ltd. (supra) where the Hon’ble Court has held that once Bench of Tribunal cannot sit in appeal against the judgtment of another Bench and if the Tribunal do not agree with the view taken by the earlier Bench the matter should be referred to the President for constituting a larger Bench, the order passed by the Tribunal in not following the judgement of this Hon’ble Court and passing the impugned order is justified? (8) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal imposing penalty upon the applicant is justified?” Learned Counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the revisionist was a registered dealer and was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Oil and in order to run his business he purchased trolleys with four tyres and handles, which were plant and stores for the revisionist and were actually treated by the revisionist as the assets of the company, which were being brought in and according to the revisionist when he purchased the same, he sent Form-38 to the seller and the Form-38 had to be filled by the seller, but unfortunately, the seller did not fill up column-6 and for this reason the goods were seized. However, learned Counsel argues that even at the time of seizure all the documents accompanying the goods such as the bill and the GR and other relevant documents were found to be accompanying the goods and no finding was recorded by the seizing authority that the goods had any difference from the goods as mentioned in the documents. 4. Learned Counsel argues that merely because column-6 of From-38 was not filled, it would not lead to the inevitable conclusion that there was intention to evade tax. It was merely a mistake according to him. However, he does not deny the fact that it is admitted to the assessee that in not filling column-6 of Form-38 was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 50 and 51 of the VAT Act. For ready reference Section 54 (1) (14) of the VAT Act reads hereunder : 14 Where the dealer or any other person, as the case may be,— (i) imports or attempts to import or abets the import of any goods, in contravention of the provisions under Section 50 or Section 51 with a view to evading payment of tax on sale of. (a) such goods: or (b) goods manufactured, processed packed by using such goods; or (ii) transports, attempts to transport any taxable goods in contravention of any provisions of this Act; 40% of value of goods. 5. Insofar as the provisions of Section 54(1) (14) are concerned, it is clear that once there is a violation of Section 50 and 51 as there has been in this case it would satisfy the first part of the provisions of Section 54(1) (14) of the Act. The second part deals with the intention. Insofar as this part is concerned, learned counsel has argued that in the set of facts of his case such an intention to evade tax could not have been drawn because all the documents were there before the authorities concerned and the documents clearly showed that the documents and the goods were matching in quantity and description. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the seizing authority wherein it records that at the time of seizure itself all the other documents relating to the goods such as the trolley, tyres and wooden items were found accompanying the goods and there is no adverse finding on this fact. 6. Learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the seizing authority wherein it records that at the time of seizure itself all the other documents relating to the goods such as the trolley, tyres and wooden items were found accompanying the goods and there is no adverse finding on this fact. 6. Learned Counsel argues that the tribunal has not dealt with this matter at all and has drawn the intention to evade tax on the basis of presumptions. He has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Sharda Exports v. Commissioner Commercial Tax, 2014 NTN (54) 54, wherein the Court taking into account similar facts and circumstances has held that when the goods were accompanying by the invoices bearing the bill numbers and dates, intention should have been ascertained from examining the accompanying documents and merely the non-filling of column-6 in Form-38 would not lead to the conclusion that there was an intention to evade tax in order to satisfy the second part of the provisions of Section 54(1) (14) of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that in the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the revisionist has not denied the fact at all that column-6 of From-38 was left blank, which in itself would be good enough to attract the penal provisions of Section 54 (1) (14) of the Act. Having heard learned Counsels on both sides and having perused the material on record, one thing, which is clear that the seizing authority itself has recorded that the goods, which were seized were found accompanied with certain documents. The Tribunal remained completely silent upon this aspect of the matter and has relied heavily on the fact that more than once the assessee had taken goods without filling column-6 of Form-38 and has drawn its conclusion from this fact that it seems that the assessee was a habitual defaulter. After examining this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal should have returned a finding on this fact also as to whether the documents, which were there before it would reflect whether or not there was intention to evade tax and as to whether documents supported the case of the assessee at all. 7. After examining this aspect of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal should have returned a finding on this fact also as to whether the documents, which were there before it would reflect whether or not there was intention to evade tax and as to whether documents supported the case of the assessee at all. 7. Such being the case, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for returning of a finding on this aspect of the matter. The Tribunal upon remand will return a clear finding on the aspect as to whether the documents, which supported the transaction justified the case of the assessee or not, or whether the intention to evade the tax could be gathered from that. The matter on remand shall be heard and decided by the Tribunal after giving to both sides an opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is being placed before it. Certified copy of this order may be produced before the Tribunal within the next ten days. The amount of penalty has already been deposited by the assessee. The amount of penalty as well as the security deposited by them shall be subject to the final order passed by the Tribunal. This revision is disposed of as above. No costs.