Short Note : This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue for getting an answer to the question :- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, registration under section 7(2) of the Central Sales-tax Act is sufficient to exclude the liability of an assessee for penalty under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales-tax Act for failure to apply and obtain registration under section 7(1) of the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 ?" 2. The facts on which this reference has been made are that the non-applicant-dealer was assessed to sales-tax, both under the M.P. General Sales-tax Act, 1958, and the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956, in respect of the period 5-11-64 to 24-10-65, though the dealer himself claimed that no part of his turnover during that period could be treated as turnover relating to interstate trade. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention and held that the deafer liable to be assessed under the Central Act in respect of turnover of Rs. 37,840 and a penalty of Rs. 2,000 was also imposed under section 18(6) of the State Act for failure to get him-self registered under section 7(1) of the Central Sales tax Act. On first appeal the quantum assessable under the Central Act was determined at Rs.34,180. As regards the turnover with regard to the State Act, the Commissioner found that the figure of Rs. 34,180 is correct so far as the turnover for the Central Act is consented. As regards the penalty, the appellate authority reduced it to Rs. 1,000. In second appeal the assessment under the Central Act was accepted, but the order imposing penalty was set aside. The Commissioner of sales-tax aggrieved by this order sought a reference to this Court. Held : It is apparent that when a dealer has transaction in the nature of inter-state trade, registration under section 7(1) is necessary. Registration under section 7(2) could not be said to be a registration under section 7(1). The Commissioner of sales-tax aggrieved by this order sought a reference to this Court. Held : It is apparent that when a dealer has transaction in the nature of inter-state trade, registration under section 7(1) is necessary. Registration under section 7(2) could not be said to be a registration under section 7(1). This question came up before a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales-tax M.P. v. M/s Imphalbs Manufacturing Co., 1972 JLJ 81 and it was held as under :- "It is no doubt true that the language of section 7(1) and section 7(2) is not very clear and that on a first look at the provisions one is tempted to take the view that the registration under section 7(2) is only voluntary or anticipatory registration contemplated under subsection (1) of section 7. But that is not so. The purpose of the two registrations are altogether different. It, therefore, follows that if a person indulges in inter-state sale, he has to get himself registered under section 7(1); and if he fails to do so he exposes himself to the penalties prescribed under the law. The Board of Revenue was altogether in error in holding that the registration under sub-section (2) of section 7 can be deemed to be registration under section (1) thereof." 3. It is not in dispute that (the assessee in the present case) has not obtained registration under section 7(1) of the Central Sales-tax Act and for his failure to apply and obtain, registration under section 7(1), penalty could be imposed under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales-tax Act, 1958. 1972 JLJ 181 , relied on. Reference answered.