Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—This batch of commercial tax revisions lays challenge to the order of the Tribunal dated 15 January 2016 upholding the imposition of penalty upon the revisionist-assessee. The proceedings themselves pertain to Assessment Year 2009-10 and relate to a seizure of goods being dispatched by the revisionist and a consequential levy of penalty under Section 48(5) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 (VAT Act). Since common questions of law arose from these revisions, they with the consent of parties were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The facts leading upto the passing of the impugned order fall within a narrow compass. The revisionist is engaged in the manufacture of soft drinks, fruit juices and other aerated beverages. It is registered both under the VAT Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was its case that during the peak summer months there is a heightened demand for soft drinks as a result of which the revisionist is compelled to engage additional contract labour on a temporary basis at its factory at Dasna, District Ghaziabad. This labour, the revisionist submits, is engaged for loading and dispatching of consignments to its various stockists and distributors situate across the States of U.P. and Uttarakhand. It was the case of the revisionist that the dispatches of soft drinks were duly accounted for in the Books of Account and that all transactions stood duly reflected in the records maintained by it. During the course of oral submission, learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that following international practices the tax invoices accompanying each consignment also carried the “date of manufacture” as well as the “batch number” of the soft drinks and beverages. As was contended before the authorities below and a submission which was reiterated before this Court, learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that during the course of loading and dispatching of consignments, the additional labour inadvertently placed certain consignments and packages meant for a particular truck onto other trucks which upon seizure led to the Department claiming that there was a discrepancy in the “date of manufacture”/”batch number” details mentioned in the tax invoices when compared with the actual consignments loaded on the truck. It was these discrepancies which primarily led to the seizure of consignments and ultimately culminated in orders imposing penalty. The assessing authority not accepting the explanation furnished by the revisionist proceeded to levy penalty on the errant consignments constraining the revisionist to prefer appeals which came to be dismissed by the first appellate authority. Aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate authority the revisionist preferred Second Appeals before the Tribunal which dismissed as many as six appeals by a common judgment and order dated 15 January 2016.

3. To view the facts in a clearer perspective, the details of the revisions, details of the second appeals, the value of consignments, the amount of penalty imposed and moneys deposited, may be viewed from the following chart :

S. No.	CTR No.	Second Appeal No.	Order of the Tribunal	A.Y.	Consig. Amount	Penalty Amount	Amount Deposited	Amount Stayed	Remarks
1	119/2016	438/2013	15/01/16	2009-10	2,39,113/-	42,810/-	42810/-		Penalty @ 25% on 1,39,283/- & @ 8% on 99,830/-
2	120/2016	437/2013	15/01/16	2009-10	1,08,486/-	27,122/-	27,122/-		Penalty @ 25% on 1,08,486/-
3	121/2016	448/2013	15/01/16	2010-11	1,75,000/-	70,000/-	70,000/-		Penalty @ 40% on 1,75,000/-
4	122/2016	446/2013	15/01/16	2010-11	93,000/-	37,200/-	37,200/-		Penalty @ 40% on 93,000/-
5	123/2016	440/2013	15/01/16	2009-10	1,86,000/-	46,500