JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - The case of the assessee is that it is engaged in the business of stationery, cement, bricks, etc. It is a registered dealer with the department. The assessee has also utilized import declaration form-XVI and form-C for the purposes of import of goods. At the time of assessment, it was noticed that the assessee has sold bricks worth Rs.47,02,272.75/- and has not admitted any tax liability on these sales of bricks, which attracted tax @ 12.5 % up to 15.11.2007 and @ 4% thereafter. A show-cause notice was served on him. Despite adjournments, he did not explain any cogent reason regarding the taxability to be assessed on the sales of bricks. The Assessing Authority vide its order dated 31.03.2011 assessed the tax on the sales of bricks and a demand of Rs.4,90,294/- was raised. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred a first appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal on 24.08.2011 and set-aside the assessed tax on the sales of bricks worth Rs. 47,02,272/-by holding that the disputed supply of bricks is liable to be deducted from the gross turnover, being part of accommodation sales, as envisaged under Rule 13(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Rules, 2005. Aggrieved by the same, a second appeal was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 03.01.2013, allowed the appeal, set-aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) and restored the order of the Assessing Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the instant revision was filed. 2. By the order dated 04.04.2013, the revision was admitted on the following question of law. Whether the revisionist/assessee had supplied bricks, in question, without profit to U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, and was it entitled to the benefit of Rule 13(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. 3. Shri Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous; the Tribunal drew its entire conclusions based on assumptions; there is no reason for the Tribunal to draw such assumptions; the material on record would clearly indicate that the bricks were supplied free of cost to the U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited after bearing the expenses towards freight, loading-unloading charges; and therefore, the Tribunal committed an error. It is further contended that the interest charged is at 15%. It is further contended that the interest charged is at 15%. In terms of Section 34(4), the same is an incorrect application of law. The assessee would be attracted by the provisions of Section 34(6) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which entails an interest of 9% per annum. The same is disputed by Shri Mohit Maulekhi, learned brief holder appearing for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in this revision. 5. The Tribunal has considered the material placed before it for consideration. It came to the conclusion that the purchases of bricks were worth Rs. 27,47,240/- having made from Haridwar and Rs. 9,95,533/- had been paid towards freight loading and unloading charges, which is certainly excessive; the amount of freight for the purchase of stationary has been shown as Rs.4,83,893/- only on the purchases of Rs.1,63,428/-, which is also very doubtful; and the purchases from outside the State worth Rs.2,99,619/- towards freight, loading and unloading charges have been shown as Rs.5,900/-. It was further noticed that the assessee had procured the bricks from brick-kiln owners situated at Haridwar and nearby areas in terms of the specification of the M/s. UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited. After bearing the expenses incurred towards freight, loading and unloading charges etc., the goods were supplied at the designated site; the supply of the bricks made to M/s. UP Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited accounted for 80% of the whole quantum of the business and, therefore, it is difficult to hold that 80% of the business activities were afforded by any dealer without making any profit. Furthermore, that as per the audited balance-sheet prepared for the assessment year 2008-09, the gross profit of Rs. 7,21,691/- has been declared against the gross sales of Rs.43,44,868/-, whereas, for the relevant year 2007-08, the audited balance-sheet has not been prepared and a gross profit of Rs.2,01,004.83/- has been declared on a turn-over of Rs.59,12,862/-. The same would, therefore, indicate that the gross-profit accrued has been adjusted by showing enormous and unbelievable expenses declared against freight, loading and unloading charges. It is on these reasons that the Tribunal reversed the order passed by the first appellate authority. 6. We do not find any error to interfere in the reasoning passed by the learned Tribunal. The reasons assigned are based on the material that is available on record. It is on these reasons that the Tribunal reversed the order passed by the first appellate authority. 6. We do not find any error to interfere in the reasoning passed by the learned Tribunal. The reasons assigned are based on the material that is available on record. It cannot be said that the order is either perverse or suffers from any infirmity. For all these reasons, the substantial question of law is answered against the assessee and in favour of the State. So far as the question of interest is concerned, the interest has been levied in terms of sub-section 4 of Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 at 15% per annum. However, we are of the considered view that the same would be attracted, not by the provision of sub-section 4 of Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, but, that of sub-section 6 of section 34 of Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, wherein, the interest @ 9% would be applicable. Hence, while dismissing the appeal, the order of the Tribunal is modified only to the extent of levying interest at 9% per annum as in opposition to 15% as ordered. It is further clarified that in terms of sub-section 6 of Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the same shall be applicable, three months after the order of assessment. 7. Revision is disposed-off accordingly. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed-off accordingly.