ORDER BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. - In this case the short point is that petitioner No. 1 is a registered dealer both under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, carrying on business of edible oils, vanaspati and ghee as an importer. In course of the said business the petitioner-company has to bring the goods from other States. In the instant case the petitioners placed orders of 700 tins of "Utsab" brand vanaspati to its dealer M/s. Binayak Stores, Bakharabad, Cuttack, Orissa and on the basis of the said order placed, the said dealer sent a pro forma bill on January 16, 1986, asking the petitioners to send them a sales tax permit forthwith to enable them to despatch the said goods of the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners duly sent the permit to the said Binayak Stores accordingly. But the said Binayak Stores along with the consignment of 700 tins of "Utsab" brand vanaspati sent another two consignment of 700 tins of "Utsab" brand vanaspati in each consignment to the petitioners without any prior information. It appears that the petitioners have received information for one truck only in advance by their letter dated January 16, 1986, and accordingly the petitioners arranged for obtaining the road permits from the sales tax authorities and the said certificate was issued on January 20, 1986, in respect of truck No. OSS 9671 and duly sent the same to them. On February 6, 1986, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chichira check-post, seized the three consignment of the goods despatched by the said M/s. Binayak Stores in a mobile checking at Sonakori by-pass in the State of West Bengal at 9 A.M. One truck being OSS No. 9671 was released by the Commercial Tax Officer because the said truck has a valid permit. After the said seizure was made the respondent No. 4 imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 for each truck on the ground that the said two vehicles were coming to the West Bengal through by-pass without sales tax permits and for evading the sales tax they have avoided the regular check-post. It may be mentioned that the three trucks were coming through the said by-pass under the compelling circumstances without the knowledge of the petitioners. 50,000 for each truck on the ground that the said two vehicles were coming to the West Bengal through by-pass without sales tax permits and for evading the sales tax they have avoided the regular check-post. It may be mentioned that the three trucks were coming through the said by-pass under the compelling circumstances without the knowledge of the petitioners. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail inasmuch as against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000 for each vehicle by the Commercial Tax Officer the petitioners preferred appeals being Appeal Case No. A-61 of 1986-87 and No. A-62 of 1986-87 and the said Assistant Commissioner upheld the validity of the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer as the authority has found that according to the gravity of offence the action taken was justified. Against the said order the petitioners, preferred revisional application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after considering the case in detail reduced the penalty imposed in each case of Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 50,000 on the ground that there is also an even chance that the petitioners might have actually received the intimation about the despatch of the seized consignments after the seizure took place. In the perspective Sri P. K. Mukherjee, Member, West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal took a somewhat lenient view of the offence and reduced the penalty imposed in each case to Rs. 20,000 only. The said Sri P. K. Mukherjee, Member, Tribunal considered the matter very carefully and considered all the contentions raised by the parties. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners' case is that the petitioners received information regarding the despatch of two more consignments at the evening by courier service on February 6, 1986, and the vehicles with goods were seized in the morning of February 6, 1986. The said goods were sent by M/s. Binayak Stores in common carriers and it is a matter of common knowledge that the choice of the routes is upon the carrier. I have perused the petition and heard the counsel. It is well-known principle as has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali reported in [1970] 76 ITR 696 that penalty proceeding is a quasi-criminal proceeding and which are applicable in case of assessment proceedings are not applicable in case of penalty proceedings. I have perused the petition and heard the counsel. It is well-known principle as has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali reported in [1970] 76 ITR 696 that penalty proceeding is a quasi-criminal proceeding and which are applicable in case of assessment proceedings are not applicable in case of penalty proceedings. As the penalty proceeding is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the motive and other factors which may be irrelevant in an assessment proceeding is very much relevant in a penalty proceeding and when it could not be established beyond any reasonable doubt that the petitioners had any ill-motive on that ground the quantum of penalty which was imposed by the authorities was reduced by the Tribunal. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1970] 25 STC 211, the Supreme Court held as hereunder : "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer : section 9(1) read with section 25(1)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." In view of the said decision it must be held that in a proceeding like this the motive is one of the important factors and that it has to be established that the petitioners had a positive motive to avoid the check-post for the purpose of evading the tax. As the Tribunal has held that the petitioners might have acted bona fide mistake and the penalty was reduced, as such on the same analogy I think that justice will be done to the parties if the said penalty has further been reduced to Rs. 5,000 for both the trucks as a token penalty inasmuch as there was a technical violation and for this technical violation dealer who is registered under the Act and who has complied with all formalities in the matter and not violated any of the provision of law wilfully, had to suffer with a heavy penalty. It was also stated by the petitioners that they have paid necessary sales tax after selling the goods which were previously seized. It was also stated by the petitioners that they have paid necessary sales tax after selling the goods which were previously seized. As it is admitted case that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of doubt and it is also admitted case that there was some mistake on the part of the petitioners and the nature of violation is technical in nature, it must be remembered the rule in question under which the penalty has been imposed has to be construed in a manner which does not offend the provisions of article 301 of the Constitution of India which provides that the trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free and admittedly the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was not published to offend the provisions of article 301 of the Constitution of India and, as such, there was no question of obtaining the prior assent of the President of India. The rule making authority certainly can frame Rules, and the Rules must be construed in a manner which fulfills the object of the Act, but not in a manner which will interfere with the constitutional rights of the citizens of India. If the rule in question had to be given its widest amplitude, in that event, in my view, a token punishment will meet the ends of justice. In this particular case it is not necessary to go into the question whether the said rule offends the article 301 of the Constitution of India and I am not deciding this question in the instant case as it is not necessary because of the fact that the admitted position is that there was some mistake on the part of the driver of the lorry and in a penalty proceeding the onus of proof is upon the Revenue that he is liable for penalty, whereas the onus of proof in an assessment proceeding is just otherwise. In the instant case it could not be established beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of violation of the impugned rule. Accordingly, considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the case and for the ends of justice, I think a token and minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000 would be quite commensurate with the minor failure to comply with the statutory requirements. Accordingly, considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of the case and for the ends of justice, I think a token and minimum penalty of Rs. 5,000 would be quite commensurate with the minor failure to comply with the statutory requirements. Respondent No. 4 is directed to refund the balance amount lying with him to the petitioners within a week from the date of communication of this order. Let a plain copy of the order be given to the petitioners on the usual undertaking. Petition allowed.