JUDGMENT This Rule is directed against an order of penalty dated 29th September, 1973 under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Colootola charge and a notice of penalty dated 28th September, 1973 under Section 5B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharmatola Circle. 2. The petitioner is a private limited company incorporated in 1966 under the Companies Act. By a registered Deed dated 3rd December, 1968 the petitioner purchased the assets, rights and liabilities of M/s. Belal Biri Factory, a registered partnership firm. The said partnership firm had sales tax registration certificate but as the sales were not taxable for the last few years before the purchase, the said certificate was cancelled. On the 19th December, 1967, the petitioner applied to the Commercial Tax Officer, Colootola' Charge for issue of a fresh registration certificate under Section 7(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and Section 7(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Various dates for the hearing of the said application were fixed by the Commercial Tax Officer and the petitioner's representative appeared before him on five occasions and answered all queries. On the 3rd December, 1968 the petitioner's authorised representative appeared again before the Commercial Tax Officer for the healing of his registration application. At that time the said representative stated that the formal document of transfer of all assets and liabilities of the said firm was executed on 3rd December, 1968. Thereafter, the petitioner's representative appeared before the said Commercial Tax Officer on the 27th December, 1968 and 9th January, 1969. Thereafter, by its letter dated 24th January, 1969 addressed to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the petitioner stated that its application had been pending for a very long time and it was extremely necessary that the petitioner should be a registered dealer and requested the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to issue necessary directions upon the Commercial Tax Officer to grant the registration certificate applied for, upon considering the application on merits. Thereafter, on 19th February, 1969 the Commercial Tax Officer wrote to the petitioner pointing out certain discrepancies and asked the petitioner to clarify the points raised in the said letter and also directed to produce books of accounts. Thereafter, on 19th February, 1969 the Commercial Tax Officer wrote to the petitioner pointing out certain discrepancies and asked the petitioner to clarify the points raised in the said letter and also directed to produce books of accounts. On or about 2nd April, 1969, the Commercial Tax Officer informed the petitioner that its application for registration certificate had been rejected on 20th March, 1969. No reason was, however, given in the said order which was communicated to the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharmatola Charge. By an order dated 24th September, 1969, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes directed the Commercial Tax Officer to pass fresh orders after affording the petitioner further opportunity to clarify the discrepancy, if any. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes observed: "From a cursory glance of the books of accounts as produced before me, it prima facie seems to me that the petitioner has already incurred liability for registration under the State Act as well as under the Central Act". By a letter dated 15th December, 1969 the petitioner's representative explained to the Commercial Tax Officer that there was in fact no discrepancy in the matter. By a memo dated 28th January, 1971, the Commercial Tax Officer intimated to the petitioner that by his order dated 19th January, 1971, he rejected the petitioner's application for registration. The petitioner, thereafter, moved this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the rejection of the petitioner's application for registration as illegal, arbitrary, and malafide. A Rule was obtained. The said Rule was made absolute by this Court on the 10th of May, 1972. P. K. Banerjee, J. set aside the order dated 19th January, 1971 and directed the Commercial Tax Officer to dispose of the petitioner's application for registration in accordance with law within six months from date. Thereupon, the Commercial Tax Officer granted the registration certificate to the petitioner both under the State and Central Acts on the 19th August, 1972. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer by his memo dated 4th June, 1973 called upon the petitioner to show came why action should not be taken against it under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer by his memo dated 4th June, 1973 called upon the petitioner to show came why action should not be taken against it under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It was alleged that it had been appeared to him that the petitioner had issued 'C' Form against the bill of purchases prior to the date of initial registration as such the petitioner had committed an offence under section 10(i)(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. On 21st June, 1973, petitioner's authorised representative appeared before the Commercial Tax Officer and submitted that the Register 2 and counter-foil of the forms being seized by the Bureau of Investigation, the same could not be produced. Thereafter, on the 30th August, 1973, the Commercial Tax Officer recorded in the order-sheet that the dealer had issued three declaration forms to make a total purchase by using all the above declaration forms for Rs. 4,53,467,03. Since all the purchases were made prior to the date of registration, the Commercial Tax Officer held that the dealer had committed an offence under Section 10(i)(c) of the Central Act as amended and imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under Section 10A of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 29th September, 1973, the petitioner preferred a revision application dated 29th January, 1974 before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes contending inter alia that in view of the fact that against the rejection of the application of registration, the petitioner moved the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule 2620(W) of 1971 and pursuant to the order of this Court the registration was granted to the petitioner on the basis of the application filed as early as 1967, the registration should have related back to the time when the application was made. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Commercial Tax Officer to cancel and/or annul the impugned order of penalty under Section 10A of the Central Act. The petitioner, therefore, requested the Commercial Tax Officer to cancel and/or annul the impugned order of penalty under Section 10A of the Central Act. Thereafter, a notice in from VIIC dated 28th September, 1973 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 5B of the Bengal Act, as an officer authorised under Rule 55B(1) of the Sales Tax rules, intimating that the petitioner after purchasing the goods had furnished declaration referred to in the proviso to the clause (aa) or clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 or in the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act in respect of a sale of goods made to the petitioner, before it was registered and, as such, the petitioner was called upon to produce the books and documents and prefer objection and adduce evidence, if any, on the specified date and time i.e., 30th October, 1973. Gist of the proposed order was also mentioned in the said notice. It is stated therein that since the petitioner had purchased Biri leaves and hessian worth Rs. 1,95,255.33 during the period from 5th June, 1972 to 4th November, 1972, by issuing declaration in form XXIV A and XXIV, petitioner had committed an offence for which a penalty of Rs.15,000/- was proposed to be imposed under the Section 5B of the Bengal Act. The petitioner being aggrieved moved this Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule. 3. Mr. Chakraborty, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that there was no satisfaction either before the initiation of the proceedings or at the time of imposition of penalty as to the commission of an offence by the petitioner. According to Mr. Chakraborty, the whole actions of the Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes were without jurisdiction. It is further contended that imposition of penalty is a quasi-criminal action and the authority while imposing penalty must have to satisfy himself that penalty was imposed not for the commission of act but for the commission of an offence. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is abundantly clear that the petitioner can not be said to have committed an offence within the meanting of Section 10(1) (c) of the Central Act and Section 5B of the Bengal Act. The declaration forms, submitted by Mr. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is abundantly clear that the petitioner can not be said to have committed an offence within the meanting of Section 10(1) (c) of the Central Act and Section 5B of the Bengal Act. The declaration forms, submitted by Mr. Chakraborty, used by the petitioner were supplied by the respondent No.1. In view of the further fact that the petitioner had duly made and application for registration long before that transactions and as the respondent No.1 granted the registration certificate in obedience to the order of this Hon'ble Court no penal action for the period between the filing of the application and granting of the same can not be taken under the law. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in (1) Subhas Chandra Ghosh v. State of Orissa (1970) 26 STC 211 . (2) Balharshal Timber Depot v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & anr. (1958) 9 STC 675, (3) Amola Bhattacharjee v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bhowanipur Charge & ors, (1972) 30 STC 482 (4) Chandra Industries v. Punjab State & ors. (1972) 29 STC 558 , and (5) Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh (1969) 23 STC 308 . 4. Mr. Sengupta, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, contended that no retrospective operation could be given to any statutory provision unless it was manifestly clear that the legislature intended that the statutory provisions would be retrospective operation. The intention might be made clear by express language used in the statute itself or by necessary implication. In the instant case, registration certificate was granted on the 19th August, 1972. If the petitioner falsely and intentionally used declaration forms received from the Commercial Tax Officer after the registration with respect to the transactions made prior to the date of obtaining the certificate for registration, penal provisions of the Acts would obviously be attracted and there was no escape from such penalty, unless the registration certificate was given retrospective operation which, under the present law could not be done. Reliance was placed upon a Bench Decision of this Court in (6) Hind Ceramics Limited v. Member Board of Revenue, West Bengal (1973) 32 STC 419 . 5. Reliance was placed upon a Bench Decision of this Court in (6) Hind Ceramics Limited v. Member Board of Revenue, West Bengal (1973) 32 STC 419 . 5. In the instant case the point for consideration is, whether penalty can be imposed upon a dealer with respect to certain transactions made during the period when the dealer’s application for registration was pending for disposal before the Commercial Tax Officer and subsequently the registration was granted to him. I am not concerned whether retrospective operation could be given to a registration certificate. 6. The Orissa High Court in (1) Subhas Ghosh's case held that once the application for registration is ultimately allowed it must be operative from the date of its filling. It could have been treated as not having been filed if it would have been ultimately rejected. 7. In (2) Balharshal Timber's case (9 STC 675), Bose, J. (as he then was) held that a person can be said to have failed to get himself registered within the meaning of Section 11 (2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax), 1941 when he does not take any steps whatsoever to obtain a registration certificate; and when the person had put in a regular application for registration and had not thereafter done anything to prevent or obtain registration but the authorities concerned were unable for some reasons or other to complete registration before a certain time, the dealer concerned could not be said to have failed to get himself registered. 8. In (3) Amola Bhattacharjee’s case (1972) 30 STC 482, P. K. Banerjee, J. followed an earlier decision in the case of Walmji Hirji Parmar & Ors. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Serampore and expressed a similar view that where a properly filled-in application for registration was filed by the dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and it took about two years for the officer to register the dealer and to issue certificate to him, the dealer could not be said to have failed to get himself registered when his application was pending before the Officer and the dealer could not be made liable under Section 12(2) of the Act. 9. 9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in (4) Chandra Industrie's case (1972) 29 STC 558 ) observed that during the interregnum between the making of the application (March, 1966) and the issue of the certificate (3rd June, 1966), the applicant's status could not be that of an unregistered dealer liable to penalty under Sections 11(6) and 23(1), as by making the application in the prescribed manner, they had discharged their part of the statutory obligation to obtain the certificate. Their liability to pay tax and the making of the application being co-terminus, the certificate, though granted three months later, would relate back to the date of the application. 10. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in (6) Hind Ceramic’s case (1973) 32 STC 412. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered by Sabyasachi Mukerji, J. at page 425 of the Report it is observed that the learned Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court have dealt with the provisions of the Act, the penal consequences and the obligation of the authority dealing with the application for registration when made. Thereafter, the learned judges have posed the question whether a dealer who honestly and diligently did all that he was required to do by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 7 and rule 5 should be penalised under Section 23(1) read with section 7(1) and the opinion of the learned judges was that they could not be so penalised. With respect we are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in so far as it held that a person who had applied for registration and had diligently and honestly made or done what he was required to do, should not be made liable under the provisions of the Act in this case, under section 11 (2) or under section 22 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. Mukharji, J. further observed that whether retrospective effect could be given in a particular case or not is not the question with which we are concerned. Mukharji, J. further observed that whether retrospective effect could be given in a particular case or not is not the question with which we are concerned. We are concerned with a question where no date is mentioned as a matter of law under the scheme of the Act, it should be presumed that a dealer who become subsequently registered should be deem to become a registered dealer from the date when he applied for registration. We find neither in the scheme of the Act nor in the language used such a presumption. * * *. The statute allowed a dealer to deduct from his gross turnover the sale made to a registered dealer. So, at the time of the sale it must be a sale to a registered dealer, otherwise, it might result in anomalies. The character of sale can not depend on subsequent event. 11. Section 10(c) of the Central Act reads as follows : If any person-not being a registered dealer-falsely represents when purchasing goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce that he is a registered dealer. He shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or it is found or in both. Section 10A provides imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution. 12. In (7) P.K. Varghese & Sons v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle Ermakulam (1965) 16 STC 322, Mathew, J. (as he then was observed in construing a similar provisions, viz- section 10(b) of the Act, that mensrea is an essential ingredient for the commission of an offence under Section 10(b). 13. In (8) Commissioner of Sales Tax M.P. Indore v. M/s. Bombay General Stores, Shadol, AIR 1969 M.P. 213 , a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in absence of mensrea a dealer could not be penalished for contravension of clause (b) of Section 10. 14. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the dealer made the applications for registration in the year 1967. His applications were first rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer on the 19th January, 1971, on the ground, that the petitioner should have applied under Section 17 of the Act as such fresh application was not maintainable. 14. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the dealer made the applications for registration in the year 1967. His applications were first rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer on the 19th January, 1971, on the ground, that the petitioner should have applied under Section 17 of the Act as such fresh application was not maintainable. That order of the Commercial Tax Officer was quashed by this Court by its order dated 10th of May, 1972 and this Court directed the Commercial Tax Officer to dispose of the petitioner's application within six months from date and thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer granted registration certificate to the petitioner on the 19th August, 1972. It is not expected that during these long periods from 1967-72 the petitioner should have stopped its business of manufacturing Biri. Obviously the petitioner was required to purchase raw materials. There can be sale of goods for deferred payment also. 15. The charges against the petitioner are that, the petitioner falsely represented when purchasing goods that he was a registered dealer. The word "falsely represents" is an ingredient of criminal offence for which a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed to six months therefor. A guilty intention is an essential element to commit an offence. There was no finding by the Commercial Tax Officer or the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the petitioner had made any false representation. 16. Before a Division Bench of this Court, in Matter No. 415 of 1967 (9) Oriental Coal Company Limited v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal) (decided on 21st August, 1974), a question arose whether the date of the amendment of the petitioner's registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 should have been given effect to from 1st October, 1958, when law was amended in the manner prayed for by the petitioner, or from 7th February, 1959 when the petitioner prayed again for amendment of its registration certificate, instead of from 5th December, 1962? 17. A.N. Sen, J. who delivered the judgment of the Division Bench was of opinion, "the provision in the form 'B' to the effect-"This certificate is valid from..... 17. A.N. Sen, J. who delivered the judgment of the Division Bench was of opinion, "the provision in the form 'B' to the effect-"This certificate is valid from..... until cancelled", clearly indicates that at the time of the grant of the original certificate and similarly at the time of making any order for amending of the original certificate granted, the Commercial Tax Officer has the necessary power to make the original certificate or the amended certificate effective from a date earlier than the date on which he makes the order granting the certificate or the order granting the amendment thereof." It was held that it is possible to make a certificate or the amended certificate effective from a date earlier than the order on which the same was issued or directed to be amended. 18. Sen, J. further observed that under the law once an application in the prescribed form giving all necessary particulars along with payment of the necessary fees has been made, it becomes a statutory obligation or duty of the Commercial Tax Officer to grant the necessary certificate or to grant a necessary amendment. Any latches or delay on the part of the authority concerned in discharging of statutory obligation or duty can not, in our opinion, deprive the dealer of the benefits to which he is entitled under the statute. Any other construction, in our view, would make the necessary provision which intends to benefit the dealer negatory and illusory. If for some reason or other the Commercial Tax Officer chooses to sit tight over the application of a dealer, on which the dealer, under the law is entitled to an order, for any length of time, the provision of the statute which seeks to benefit the dealer becomes indeed meaningless. 19. In (6) Hind Ceramic's case, a Division Bench of this Court held following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandra Industrie's case, that a person or dealer who had applied for registration should not be criminally made liable or should not be proceeded against under the Sales Tax Act because he could not be expected to do anything more. In Oriental Company's case, a Division Bench of this Court held that an amended certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act can be effective from a date earlier than the date on which the Commercial Tax Officer makes the order granting the certificate or the order granting amendment thereof. I am in respectful agreement with the above views. 20. In my opinion, no penalty either under Section 10A of the Central Act or under Section 5B of the Bengal Act could be imposed upon a dealer whose applications for registration were pending under the both Acts and when the registration certificates were granted subsequently by the Commercial Tax Officer. As soon as a person makes for registration complying with the requirements of the statute an application and diligently pursues the matter and subsequently the certificate of registration is granted to that person by the authorities such a dealer can not be treated as an unregistered dealer and can not be prosecuted and penalised for committing any offence under the Act. 21. In the result, this Rule is made absolute. The impugned notice as well as the impugned order of penalty are quashed by a Writ of Certiorari. Let a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order of penalty and the notice. There will be no order as to cost.