JUDGMENT : VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist and the learned standing counsel. 2. Present revision is filed for challenging the order dated 19.7.2013 of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has affirmed the penalty of Rs.6,38,124/- under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. 3. The facts of the case are that revisionist has submitted his return and in the said return he has shown import of goods of Rs.79,76,551/- but had not submitted required form under which the same were imported. Treating the same to be in violation of provisions of law, penalty was imposed upon the revisionist firm. The revisionist firm challenged the same on the ground that there was no intent to evade any liability of tax. The said amount was duly declared in its books of business duly maintained by it and submitted. Therefore, once there was no intention to conceal or evade payment of tax, the penalty could not have been imposed. 4. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of M/s.Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 1969 2 SCC 627 . Relevant para-8 of the said judgment reads as follows:- "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer--Section 9 (1) read with Section 25 (1) (a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasicriminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the Company in failing to register the Company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the Company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out." 5. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in M/s. Gulmarg Chemicals & Scientific Works, Aligarh. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, NTN, 1996 Allahabad High Court 343. The facts of the said case were quite similar to the facts of the present case which are relevant in para-2 of the said judgment which reads as follows:- "The applicant is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of scientific goods, apparatus and electrical goods etc. In the assessment year 1983-84 he submitted the return and also produced the account books duly maintained by him in the ordinary course of business. The Assessing Authority accepted the account books and also the return and assessed the tax accordingly on 25.8.1987. The assessing authority noticed that some of the puchases recorded in the account books and imported from out side U.P. were made without sumitting form No.31. The tax assessed for the assessment year 1983-84 was duly paid by the assessee. But later on in September, 1987 the assessing authority initiated the proceedings for imposition of penalty for the violation of Section 28-A of the Sales Tax Act and after rejecting the explanation submitted by the assessee imposed a sum of Rs.19,000/- as penalty under Section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act, relying upon the decision of the High Court in case of Bulaki Lal Vinod Kumar. The assessee could not succeed in his first appeal against the imposition of the penalty and afterwards in the second appeal wherein the learned Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty only by Rs.2000/-." 6. After considering the judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court held as under in para-13 of the said judgment:- "In view of the admitted facts of the case and the clear finding of facts recorded by the Assessing Authority failure to furnish the form No.31 for the purchase made from outside U.P. By post was merely a technical omission caused by lack of knowledge or negligence but not with any intention to evade tax as the assess had already recorded all the purchases in his account books which were duly verified and the tax thereon has been deposited by the assessee. I, therefore, hold that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the imposition of penalty under Section 28-a reads with Section 15-A (1) (o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was not justified in law and on facts. Consequently the imposition of penalty by the Assessing Authority and the confirmation thereof by the appellate authorities is liable to be quashed." 7. Thus, what is required to be seen is that there should be an intention to evade tax and mere a technical omission or violation of law would not empower the authority to impose penalty. In the present case also, since there is only a technical defect of non-submission of form, while the entire transactions are reflected in the book of accounts submitted by the revisionist voluntarily to the department during his assessment proceedings, it can be safely inferred that there was no intention to evade liability of tax. Thus, the revisionist could not be made liable for any penalty. Learned standing counsel could not dispute the factual aspect of the transactions which were duly recorded in the book of accounts of the revisionist which were submitted in the assessment proceedings and the settled law. 8. Thus the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.7.2013 passed by the Tribunal, is set aside.