JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent-assessee is a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act. He is a general merchant and also a commission agent at Sirsi. At the time of making the assessment for the period 25-10-1965 to 12-11-1966 it was discovered that he had collected a sum of Rs. 9,801-63 purportig to be a tax on the sale of goods belonging to his principals. The Assessing Authority took action under S. 18a of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 for contravention of s. 18 (1) of the Act and issued a notice proposing to levy a penalty of Rs. 14,700 under S. 18a of the Act and after hearing the petitioner, levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000 by its order dt. 2-5-1969. The said order was appealod before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharwar. The appeal was allowed following the decision of this Court in V. B. Patil v. Comml. Tax Officer, 24 STC. 448= (1970) Kar. L. J. 21= (1970) 1 Mys. L. J. 447 The second appeal preferred by the Department- was dismissed by the Mysore Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE contention before the Tribunal was that the ratio of the decision in v. B. Patil's case cannot be applied to this case in view of the amendment to s. 18 (1) of the Act which came into force on 1-4-1966. Same is the contention urged before us now. ( 3 ) WE do not think that the amendment to the Section has made any difference in the position of law as laid down in V. B. Patil's case. Further, a similar provision came up for consideration before the Supreme court in State of U. P. v. A. B. Mfg. Co. , AIR. 1973 SC. 1333. and Khanna, J. while considling the scope of S. 29a of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (Act 15 of 1948) which is in pan materia with S. 18a of the Mysore Sales Tax Act said that such provision was beyond the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution. In our opinion, the view ta,ken by the Tribunal is corriect. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed; but no costs. --- *** --- .