JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manu Ghildyal, Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal, Kanpur Bench 1, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 238 of 2006 (M/s Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Trade Tax, Kanpur) for the assessment year 2004-2005 arising out of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 15-A(1)(o) of U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1948") in which following questions of law have been raised :

"(1) Whether, the penalty of Rs. 4.00 lacs imposed and sustained against the applicant is wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act, 1948 ?

(2) Whether, the penalty imposed on the applicant under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the Act, 1948 is wholly perverse, arbitrary and excessive ?"

3. Sri Aditya Pandey, counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a Public Limited Company and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of tooth paste, tooth powder, tooth brush and cosmetics etc. The revisionist used to send its goods from the place of factory to its various