ORDER BISHAMBHAR DAYAL, C.J. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 515 of 1970 and No. 516 of 1970. These three writ petitions by M/s Premier Refractories of India (P.) Ltd., are directed against the imposition of penalty for not depositing the sales tax according to the returns before the returns were filed. Misc. Petition No. 516 of 1970 relates to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the calendar year 1966, while Misc. Petition No. 514 also relates to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, but it is for the calendar year 1963. Misc. Petition No. 515 of 1970 relates to tax under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, also relating to the calendar year 1963. The petitioner filed its returns according to the requirements of law; but it did not deposit the tax, which was due according to its own returns. Under the rules it had to file a copy of the receipted challan along with the return showing that it had deposited the tax in the treasury. It failed to attach this challan with its return. When the case was heard by the assessing officer, he treated these cases to be cases of "no returns". He was of the opinion that in the absence of the return being accompanied by the necessary challan, the return was not a proper return. But he accepted the calculations according to the account books of the petitioner and assessed the tax according to the returns. He, however, imposed a penalty in both the cases for not having deposited the amount before the riling of the returns and for not having attached the challan's with the returns. The amount of penalty in all the cases is different; but that is not relevant for the decision of these writ petitions. Thus in the case of Central sales tax as well as State sales tax the petitioner submitted returns but did not deposit the tax according to its own returns. The returns were treated as invalid and a penalty was imposed, although the assessment was made according to the returns. Thus in the case of Central sales tax as well as State sales tax the petitioner submitted returns but did not deposit the tax according to its own returns. The returns were treated as invalid and a penalty was imposed, although the assessment was made according to the returns. In all the three cases the assessee filed revisions before the revising authority which were also dismissed on the view that non-payment of tax according to the rules made the returns invalid and penalty under section 17(3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act was, therefore, properly imposed. These orders of penalty by the assessing authority as well as the confirmation of the orders by the revising authority are being challenged by these petitions. Three contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner for the proposition that the penalty could not be imposed in cases under the Central Sales Tax Act. The first contention is that under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, officers appointed under the State Act are authorized to collect the Central sales tax. Thus, the Central Sales Tax Act has adopted the State law for the purpose of collection of tax and this could be done only so far as the law existing at the time when the Central Sales Tax Act came into force permitted and any subsequent amendment of the State Act after the Central Sales Tax Act had come into force cannot be utilized by the collecting authorities. According to learned counsel, when the Central Sales Tax Act was introduced in 1956, the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act was in force and under that Act there was no provision for imposing penalty in such a case. The second contention of learned counsel was that in any case section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act merely authorized the use of the procedural provisions of the State Act and did not authorise the imposition of any penalty which was not authorized by the Central Act. Lastly, it was contended that in any case the non-payment of tax was under a bona fide belief that there was no penalty attached to it at the time and consequently any subsequent amendment to the Central Act or the State Act cannot be utilized for justifying the imposition of penalty which was not authorized at the time of imposition. Lastly, it was contended that in any case the non-payment of tax was under a bona fide belief that there was no penalty attached to it at the time and consequently any subsequent amendment to the Central Act or the State Act cannot be utilized for justifying the imposition of penalty which was not authorized at the time of imposition. In respect of the penalty imposed in the case of tax under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, the contention was that there was no provision for imposing penalty for non-payment of tax along with the return. This argument is also applicable to all the three cases since the penalty has been imposed under section 17 (3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act and if there is no provision for imposing penalty under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, there can be no penalty even in the cases under the Central Sales Tax Act. We will, therefore, deal with the last argument first which is applicable to all the three cases. This matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax 1971 MPLJ 623 : (1971) 28 STC 247 . In that case it was pointed out that section 17 (3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act provided for imposition of penalty in the case of failure to file a return and penalty for non-payment of sales tax was separately provided by section 22 of the Act. It was held that non-payment of tax along with the return for which no notice of demand had been issued as required by section 22 of the Act was not sufficient to impose penalty for non-payment. This decision was rendered on 2nd April 1971. The State Government thereafter amended section 17 (3) by M. P. Act No. 13 of 1971 which came into force on its publication in the Gazette on 6th May 1971. This decision was rendered on 2nd April 1971. The State Government thereafter amended section 17 (3) by M. P. Act No. 13 of 1971 which came into force on its publication in the Gazette on 6th May 1971. Sub-section (3) was redrafted and was enacted as follows: (3) If-- (a) a dealer fails without sufficient cause to comply with the requirements of a notice issued under sub-section (1); or (b) a registered dealer fails without sufficient cause to furnish under the said subsection his return for any period by the date prescribed thereunder or while furnishing the return fails to furnish along with the return the proof of payment as required by sub-section (1-A), the Commissioner may, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay, by way of penalty, a sum not exceeding one-fourth of the amount of the tax which may be assessed on him under section 18 or where no tax is payable a sum not exceeding one hundred rupees. By this sub-section even non-payment of tax or non-furnishing of the proof of deposit along with the return has been made liable to penalty. This amendment has been made by section 5 of the amending Act and the provisions of section 5 have been made retrospective from the date of the commencement of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. The relevant part of section 11 of the amending Act is as follows: An assessment, re-assessment, levy or collection of any tax or imposition of any penalty made or purporting to have been made, and any action or thing taken or done or purporting to have been taken or done in relation to such assessment, re-assessment, levy, collection or imposition under the provisions of the Principal Act before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such assessment, re-assessment, levy, collection or imposition or action or thing had been made, taken or done under the Principal Act as amended by section 2, section 5 and section 9 of this Act.... x x x x By this Act, therefore, not only was section 17 (3) amended retrospectively but any action taken or penalty imposed before the amendment was validated as if taken or imposed under the Act as amended. x x x x By this Act, therefore, not only was section 17 (3) amended retrospectively but any action taken or penalty imposed before the amendment was validated as if taken or imposed under the Act as amended. In view of this amendment it can no longer be said that section 17 (3) did not authorize the imposition of penalty for non-deposit of tax before the return was filed. Moreover, in the case of assessment under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act even the argument that at the time when the assessee filed its return without the challan for payment, it was under a bona fide belief that it was not necessary to do it as there was no penalty imposed for it, is not sufficient to set aside the order imposing the penalty on the assessee, in view of section 11 of the amending Act by which such imposition has been declared to be valid. In view of this clear pronouncement of the Legislature, it is difficult for this Court to say that the imposition was not proper. On account of the amendment, therefore, Misc. Petition No. 515 of 1970 has no force and must be dismissed. However, this reasoning, in our opinion, cannot be extended to the imposition of penalty for the recovery of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. Under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act the machinery of the State Act has been adopted for the purpose of recovering Central sales tax on behalf of the Central Government. Consequently, the officers appointed under the State Act collect Central sales tax as authorised by the Central Sales Tax Act and not under authority merely of the State Act. If, therefore, at the time when the penalty was imposed they could not do so under the authority of the Central Sales Tax Act, which must be deemed to have adopted the State law as it then stood, that illegal imposition cannot be validated by any retrospective amendment of the State, law subsequently made. Such an illegal collection of the Central sales tax can only be validated by authority of a Central Act. Such an illegal collection of the Central sales tax can only be validated by authority of a Central Act. The argument of learned Advocate-General on behalf of the department was that since the amendment of the State Act was retrospective, it must be deemed today when the writ petition has to be decided that the State law, at the time of imposition of penalty, was as it is now, after the amendment. We are unable to accept this contention. But even so, the position would still remain that the assessee had a bona fide belief at that time that non-payment of tax before the filing of the return was not liable to penalty. The mere fact that technically the authority may have jurisdiction to impose penalty is not sufficient to do so unless "the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation". Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC). Such an imposition of penalty, unless ratified by the Central Government, is liable to be challenged before this Court as improperly imposed, even upon the basis that the State law has been subsequently amended and it may legally be correct. We are, therefore, of opinion that so far as the imposition of penalty for non-payment of Central sales tax is concerned, this argument will not suffice to reject the claim of the petitioner. Coming to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the adoption of the State law for the purpose of collection of Central sales tax, the first contention that the law adopted was that applicable on the date when the Central sales tax came into force does not appeal to us. This matter also came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court deciding the case of Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra) and it has been held in that case that the Central Sales Tax Act has clearly provided that the State law applicable for the time being in force would-be utilized for the purpose of collecting Central sales tax. "For the time being" in this context clearly means "during the period for which assessment is to be made". "For the time being" in this context clearly means "during the period for which assessment is to be made". Thus, there is no force in the contention that the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act can only be utilized for the purpose of collecting the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, as amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969, (Act No. 28 of 1969), the power to impose penalty under the State Act has not been given to the officers collecting the Central sales tax. The argument of learned counsel is that the tax or penalty, whichever is collected by the officers under the State Act, must be such as is imposable under the Central Act. The relevant part of section 9(2), after the amendment, is as follows: Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax, or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, imposition of the tax liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of, or successor to, such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or partition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, refunds, penalties, compounding of offences and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly. X X X X Learned counsel for the petitioner has particularly relied upon the following four phrases in the above sub-section: (i) "Subject to the other provisions of this Act"; (ii) "on behalf of the Government of India"; (iii) "assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty payable by a dealer under this Act"; and (iv) "as if the tax or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State." On account of these phrases used in the first part of sub-section (2) of section 9 it is contended that all that has been provided for is that the officers will utilize the machinery of the State Act merely for the purposes of collecting sales tax or penalty which can be imposed under the Central Sales Tax Act. It has also been contended that since merely the procedural part of the State Act has been adopted and imposition of penalty is a substantive law, it cannot be deemed to have been adopted merely by adopting the procedural part. For these contentions reliance has been placed on Shri Mohanlal Chokhany v. Commercial Tax Officer (1971) 28 STC 367 , a decision of the Calcutta High Court, and Guldas Narasappa Thimmiah Oil Mills v. Commercial Tax Officer (1970) 25 STC 489 , a decision of the Mysore High Court. There are other cases also, which have adopted the same line of argument, and need not be mentioned here. On behalf of the department, learned Advocate General placed reliance upon Commissioner of Saks Tax v. Kantilal Mohanlal and Bros. 1967 M P L J 347 : (1967) 19 STC 377 , a decision of a Division Bench of this Court under section 17 (3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. In that case the assessee failed to make a proper return for the Central sales tax and the assessing officer imposed a penalty under section 17(3) of the M P General Sales Tax Act. The question was whether section 17 (3) authorized the imposition of penalty in the case of Central Sales tax. In that case the assessee failed to make a proper return for the Central sales tax and the assessing officer imposed a penalty under section 17(3) of the M P General Sales Tax Act. The question was whether section 17 (3) authorized the imposition of penalty in the case of Central Sales tax. One of the arguments advanced in that case was that the M. P. Sales Tax (Central) Rules, 1957, authorized the imposition of penalty by rules 7-A and 12 for not filing a return and consequently section 17 (3) could not be utilized for imposition of penalty. This Court held that those rules 7-A and 12 merely provided for punishment and imposition of a fine for the offence of not complying with the rules. Those rules, therefore, created a criminal offence and related to imposition of a fine, while section 17 (3) did not create a criminal offence and merely authorized the imposition of a penalty for not filing of the return. Rules 7-A and 12, therefore, did not bar the imposition of a penalty under section 17 (3). We are in entire agreement with that line of reasoning and need not say anything more with regard to that part of the contention of learned counsel which was also advanced in this case. With regard to the contention that by section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, which has now been substituted by section 9(2), the Central Act merely adopted the procedural provisions of the State Act and, therefore, did not authorise the imposition of penalty, it was noted in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kantilal Mohanlal and Bros, (supra) that-- That provision distinctly lays down that assessment, collection and enforcement of payment of any tax under the Central Act shall be by the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the State sales tax law and the Rules made thereunder, and has to be in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the State Act is assessed, collected or paid and that the provisions of the State law including provisions relating to returns, penalties and offences shall apply. (Italics is ours) It was on this basis that this Court came to the conclusion that penalty could be imposed under section 17 (3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. (Italics is ours) It was on this basis that this Court came to the conclusion that penalty could be imposed under section 17 (3) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. We have carefully gone through the decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Mysore High Court cited above ; but we are unable to see any reason which obliges us to depart from the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Saks Tax v. Kantilal Mohanlal and Bros, (supra). The amended sub-section (2) of section 9, to our mind, has made no substantial alteration. Before this amendment section 9 of the Central Act, by sub-section (2) provided: The penalty imposed upon any dealer under section 10A shall be collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in sub-section (3). Under sub-section (3) provision was made for the State authorities to assess, collect and enforce payment of Central sales tax. As noted by the earlier Division Bench, the last part of the first paragraph of sub-section (3) also provided: ......and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, penalties and compounding of offences shall apply accordingly. (Italics is ours) The amended sub-section (2) quoted above blends together the power to collect penalties imposed under the Central Act as well as the power to assess and collect Central Sales tax in the same sub-section. The first part authorizes the imposition and collection of penalties which can be imposed and collected under the Central Act. The learned Judges of the Calcutta and Mysore High Courts in the cases mentioned above have noted the provisions of the first part of sub-section (2) of section 9 alone. But they have completely ignored the last part of sub-section (2) which, for the sake of emphasis, we may quote again: ......and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns...............refunds, penalties, compounding of offences ... shall apply accordingly. shall apply accordingly. Under this part of sub-section (2), therefore, clearly the State law relating to imposition of penalties while exercising the power to assess, impose or recover Central sales tax or penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act has been adopted by the Central Act. If this view is not taken, the use of the word "penalty" in the last part of sub-section (2) becomes wholly redundent. Thus, reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the four phrases quoted above from the first part of the sub-section and the contention that the Central Act has not adopted the power to impose penalty under the State law have no force. We are, therefore, of opinion that the assessing officer, if authorized by the State law, could impose the penalty. The question then is whether the State law authorized the imposition of penalty for non-payment of tax before the filing of the return. We have already mentioned above that the Division Bench case of this Court in Jiwanlal Sons Private Ltd v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (supra) has held that such an imposition of penalty was not authorized at the time when it was imposed. The contention of learned Advocate General that the subsequent amendment of the State law gave that authority retrospectively has already been noted above and we think that even if technically it may be said that the power to impose penalty must be deemed to have existed at the time when the penalty was imposed, such a deemed authority conferred subsequently cannot make the act of the assessee either deliberate flouting of law or an action which can be said contumacious so as to make it liable for imposition of penalty. This imposition of penalty not having been specifically ratified by the Central Act is liable to Judicial scrutiny and we are of opinion that the imposition of penalty in both the cases under the Central Sales Tax Act (Misc. Petitions Nos. 514 and 516 of 1970) must be quashed. The result is that Misc. Petitions Nos. 514 and 516 of 1970 are allowed and the assessment orders so far as they impose penalty for non-deposit of tax along with the returns, as also the orders of the revising authority upholding those orders, are quashed. Misc Petition No. 515 is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs in all the three cases. Petitions Nos. 514 and 516 of 1970 are allowed and the assessment orders so far as they impose penalty for non-deposit of tax along with the returns, as also the orders of the revising authority upholding those orders, are quashed. Misc Petition No. 515 is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs in all the three cases. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner in all the three cases. Petition allowed