https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165884 In revision under section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the revisional authority could examine only the legality or propriety of the penalty order on the basis of the record existing when that order was passed. Material created later could not be used to challenge or invalidate the order. On the record then available, the assessee had not produced the books of account when called upon, and the discrepancy between declared goods and goods found at interception supported the penalty. The penalty order was therefore sustained and no interference was warranted. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165884 In revision under section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the revisional authority could examine only the legality or propriety of the penalty order on the basis of the record existing when that order was passed. Material created later could not be used to challenge or invalidate the order. On the record then available, the assessee had not produced the books of account when called upon, and the discrepancy between declared goods and goods found at interception supported the penalty. The penalty order was therefore sustained and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165884