GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. He obtained a certificate of registration for the year 1963-64 under S. 10 of the Act. The certificate mentioned that the goods covered by the registration are 'general goods'. The petitioner submitted a return of turnover of Rs. 9,190-19 P in respect of tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils and agricultural implements. The said turnover was assessed under the Act. The Registering Authority being of the opinion that although the goods in question were not specified in the certificate of registration, the petitioner-dealer had issued declarations in. Form C to the effect that they are covered by the registration certificate. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty shall not be levied under Sec. 10 (b) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation contending, inter alia, that he bona fide believed that the expression 'general goods' covered goods like tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils etc. and therefore no penalty was attracted. The 2nd respondent by order dt. 17-11-1964 imposed on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 689-25p under S. 10a of the Act. The,said order does not satisfy the requirements of S. 10 (b) of the Act. The condition precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to impose penalty is that there must be a finding that the registered dealer falsely represented when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by the certificate of registration. The said section reads thus:"10. Penalties.-If any person- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration; or (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both; and when the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues. " ( 2 ) SECTION 10a reads thus:"10a. (1) Imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution.-If any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of S. 10, the authority who granted to Mm or, as the case may be, is competent to grant to him a certificate of registration under this Act may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, impose upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one-and-a- half times the tax which would have been levied under this Act in respect of the sale to him of the goods if the offence had not been committed. " ( 3 ) IT will be seen from the above provisions that the offence is committed by a registered dealer when he falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration. ( 4 ) THE operative portion of the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 17-11-64 reads thus:"the dealers have filed the objections for the above show cause notice on 31-10-1964, stating that the term 'general Goods' covered such as implements, tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils. The explanations of the dealer are not fully convincing. Anyhow a lenient view is taken in view of the fact that the goods had already suffered tax at 2 per cent by CST Act and tax under MST Act and a penalty of rs. 689-25 is levied under S. 10a of the CST Act, 1956. " ( 5 ) THERE is no finding that the petitioner falsely represented when purchasing the goods in question that such goods are covered by his certificate of registration. 689-25 is levied under S. 10a of the CST Act, 1956. " ( 5 ) THERE is no finding that the petitioner falsely represented when purchasing the goods in question that such goods are covered by his certificate of registration. In that view there is a clear error of law in the order made by the 2nd respondent. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore was also dismissed without recording a finding to the same effect. In that view the proper order to make is, to quash the impugned orders dt. 17-11-1964 made by the 2nd respondent and the order dt. 19-7-1969 made by the 1st respondent, reserving liberty to the 2nd respondent to make fresh order in accordance with law arid jn the light of the above observations. If the penalty has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50. --- *** --- .