Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. This revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was originally filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1993 and received by this Court on transfer under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal.

2. The revision is directed against the order dated September 30, 1992 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haldwani, in second appeal Nos. 78 of 1991 and 77 of 1991. The revision involves following question of law :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 15A(1)(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, despite the fact that the dealer had deliberately issued false form III-C(2) to the purchasers

3. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist. No one turned up on behalf of the assessee, even after service of notice.

4. The assessee is a dealer of paddy, who does the business of manufacturing and sale of rice, after purchasing paddy. In the process of manufacturing of rice, he also manufactures rice polish and chaff. This re