Judgment Appendix II MEHROTRA, J. - M/s. Goyal Bandhu was carrying on business at Kanpur and for the year 1973-74 it made an application for registration as a dealer under the U.P. Sales Tax Act on 17th December, 1973, instead of having made it prior to 1st April, 1973. The dealer had obtained registration in earlier years. For the breach aforesaid, proceedings for imposing penalty upon the dealer were initiated and the Sales Tax Officer, after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the dealer, imposed a penalty of Rs. 3,300 upon it in view of section 15-A(1)(g). This order was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, but in a second appeal by the dealer, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, held that it is not liable to pay any amount by way of penalty. It is this order which has been assailed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in the present revision under section 11(1) of the Act before this Court. Section 15-A envisages that where an assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer who is liable for registration under the Act, carries on or continues to carry on business without obtaining registration, he shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty in addition to the tax, if any, payable by him, a sum of Rs. 100 each month or part thereof for the default during the first three months and rupees five hundred for every month or part thereof after the first three months during which the default continues. The assessing authority required the dealer to pay the amount aforesaid as penalty under this provision. The Tribunal, inter alia, observed in its order that though the dealer was liable to pay penalty on account of default in getting renewal done in time, the fact that in the previous years he had not paid tax and was a dealer in non-taxable goods, together with the circumstance that he got the defect of non-registration in the year in question removed after payment of compounding fee, it was a case of mere omission on his part and there was no deliberate default of the dealer in the matter. In this view of the matter, according to the Tribunal, no penalty should be imposed on the dealer even though there was a technical breach on his part in the matter of statutory obligation of obtaining renewal of registration. In this view of the matter, according to the Tribunal, no penalty should be imposed on the dealer even though there was a technical breach on his part in the matter of statutory obligation of obtaining renewal of registration. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commissioner of Sales Tax has urged that after having affirmed the finding that the dealer had committed a default in not seeking renewal of his registration in time, the only course open to the Tribunal was to have affirmed the quantum of penalty which was statutorily provided in the aforesaid provision. He has placed reliance, in support of this submission, upon the decision of R. R. Rastogi, J., in Ram Lakhan Ved Prakash v. Commissioner, Sales Tax [1982] 51 STC 347 (App); 1981 ATJ 49. In the case of Ram Lakhan Ved Prakash [1982] 51 STC 347 (App); 1981 ATJ 49, the learned Judge upheld the order of penalty imposed upon the dealer after noticing the decision of a seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Ltd. [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC). He held that on account of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in that case, the element of mens rea in the matter of imposition of penalty for failure to get registration was no longer necessary. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) has observed that liability to penalty did not arise merely upon the proof of default in registering as a dealer, and that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is a result of quasi-criminal proceedings and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged to do that acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Also, that the decision whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation was a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty could be justified in refusing to impose it when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. Even if minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty could be justified in refusing to impose it when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. The decision in this case continues to be good law, as noticed by brother Rastogi, J., too in Ram Lakhan Ved Prakash's case [1982] 51 STC 347 (App); 1981 ATJ 49. The fact that the dealer, in the instant case, did not deliberately fail to get registration within time and that the circumstances found by the Tribunal were such as led it, in its discretion, to take the view that the dealer should not be required to pay any amount by way of penalty, distinguishes the present case from the one decided by brother Rastogi, J., where he had found, as a fact, that there was a clear case of conscious disregard of statutory obligation on the part of the dealer. The additional revising authority had recorded a finding that the default on the part of the dealer was intentional and this was affirmed by the learned Judge. The issue which was up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Joshi, Sales Tax Officer's case [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC) was a different one. There the question whether mens rea was necessary for attracting the penalty under the relevant provision of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, was up for consideration as also the question whether a heavy amount of penalty could be provided for in respect of a default attracting the penalty even though there was no element of mens rea involved. The Supreme Court was not invited to nor did it go into the question about the discretion of the authority in the matter of quantum of penalty. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to deal with that decision in any further detail. On facts found, the decision of the Tribunal is unexceptionable in law. It does not merit interference. The revision fails and is dismissed though without any order as to costs.