Judgment : This writ petition and other writ petitions are taken up with the consent of parties. This case is clearly governed by the order of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos.24 and 25 of 1974 dated 110. 1974 for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72. That was affirmed by this Court in T.C.Nos.564 and 565 of 1975 (revision Nos.129 and 130 of 1975). The order of this Court reads as follows: "What is urged by the learned Additional Government Pleader-I is that before resale, the assessee has used the gunny bags covered by the ‘C’ forms by hiring them" out and that in such a case there was a contravention of the conditions in the C Form, with the result that no concessional rate would apply. It seems to us that so long as the goods which are covered by the C forms had been purchased with a view to re-sell, the conditions of the C forms have been satisfied. Nowhere it is said in the C form that the goods could not be put to any use before re-sale. In any case, the matter should be examined from the point of view of the Revenue as to whether there was any loss of revenue. There is none here. There is no evidence to show that because the gunny bags had been used by hiring them out before re-sale, they had been put to such sizable or noticeable damage as to cause any appreciable difference in value of the resale. On that view, we decline to interfere. The tax cases are dismissed". Thus it is clearly pronounced by this Court that the law does not prevent the goods from being used before re-sale. The only condition is that the goods covered had been purchased with a view to re-sell. When that condition is satisfied then there is no question of loss of revenue and the department cannot be aggrieved by the same. 2. In spite of the order of the Tribunal being brought to the notice of the Commercial-Tax Officer-II, Tuticorin, he has passed the impugned order stating that the petitioner has not filed copies of the appellate orders issued by the Tribunal. He could have very well looked into the orders of the Tribunal which would have been available in the files or he could have sent for the orders from the Tribunal. He could have very well looked into the orders of the Tribunal which would have been available in the files or he could have sent for the orders from the Tribunal. But without doing so the officer has proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs.43,707 which is wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5. 1987 made in C.S.T. Assessment No.466006/81-82 is quashed. The respondent shall pay costs personally to the petitioner. Counsel fee Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only). 4. W.P.Nos.5716to 5718 of 1987: These writ petitions relate to the assessment years 1983-84, 1982-83 and 1984-85 respectively. In these cases the petitioner has come at an earlier stage even before issue of any notice to show cause. There is no necessity at all in these cases to issue any writ. It is open to the petitioner to produce this order before the respondent and inform him that in view of the order in W.P.No.5715 of 1987 he cannot impose any penalty with reference to the assessment years 1982-83,1983-84 and 1984-85. Hence these writ petitions are dismissed with the above observation. No costs.