JUDGMENT A. K. MATHUR, C.J. - This is a reference under section 44 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short, "the Act") and the following question of law has been referred by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee for answer by this Court : "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicants were clearing or forwarding agents within the meaning of section 36-A of the Act and, therefore, confirming a penalty of Rs. 500 imposed under section 36-A(2) of the Act by the lower courts ?" 2. The assessee, M/s. Delhi, U.P., M.P. Transport Co., Satna, have dealings in transportation of goods. Certain information was sought from the assessee and in appears that the same was not furnished. Therefore, penalty under section 36-A(2) of the Act has been imposed. Between the period July 20, 1984 to September 9, 1984, Sales Tax Flying Squad of Satna checked 4 trucks of the Transport Co. to deliver the goods of 60 bilties with the consent of the Sales Tax Department. After ascertaining the names and addresses of the customers, goods of the bilties were delivered from time to time. After October 30, 1984, the Transport Co. was required to deliver the goods of the bilties to the customers at a faster pace by was of abundant precaution in prudent haste in view of possible threat of damage to the goods in the wake of unruly conditions prevailing at the time in the country following the assassination of the late Prime Minister. The goods were subsequently cleared, but the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Satna, proceed under section 36-A(2) of the Act against the assessee and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500 for disobedience of the requirement of section 36-A(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the appellate authority. It upheld the order of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. Ultimately the matter reached the Board of Revenue in second appeal. The Board of Revenue also upheld the order passed by the assessing authority. Hence the aforesaid question has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer by this Court. 3. We have gone through the matter and heard learned counsel for the parties. Ultimately the matter reached the Board of Revenue in second appeal. The Board of Revenue also upheld the order passed by the assessing authority. Hence the aforesaid question has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer by this Court. 3. We have gone through the matter and heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 36 of the Act only lays down the power of the Commissioner to call for information in certain cases. Section 36 reads as under : "36. Powers of Commissioner to call for information in certain cases. - The Commissioner may, for the purposes of this Act - (a) require any firm or an undivided Hindu family to furnish a statement of the names and addresses of the partners of such firm, or of the names and addressees of the manager and members of such family, as the case may be; (b) require any person whom he has reason to believe to be a trustee, guardian, manager or agent to furnish a statement of the name and address, of the person for whom he is a trustee, guardian, manager or agent; (c) require any person whom he has to believe to have purchased goods from outside Madhya Pradesh to furnish a statement of the name and address of the person from whom he has purchased such goods and the description and price thereof and the manner in which they were delivered to him; (d) require any person whom he has reason to believe to have despatched goods to any place outside Madhya Pradesh to furnish a statement of the name and address of the person to whom he has despatched such goods and of the description and price thereof." The Commissioner has been given power to seek information under the Act from the person concerned. Under section 36-A of the Act, information can also be sought from the banks and clearing and forwarding agents. Section 36-A of the Act reads as under : "36-A. Furnishing of information by banks and clearing and forwarding agents. Under section 36-A of the Act, information can also be sought from the banks and clearing and forwarding agents. Section 36-A of the Act reads as under : "36-A. Furnishing of information by banks and clearing and forwarding agents. - (1) Every bank including any branch of a bank and every clearing or forwarding agent shall, if so required by the Commissioner, furnish such particulars including statement of accounts and affairs verified in the manner specified by the Commissioner as he may require in respect of transactions of any dealer with such bank or with such clearing or forwarding agent which during the course of its business handles documents of title to goods or transports goods; (2) If any clearing or forwarding agent contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1), the Commissioner may, after giving such agent a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to three times the amount of tax payable in respect of the goods involved in the transactions referred to in sub-section (1) and which appears to have been evaded by the owner of such goods due to the failure of such agent to furnish information pertaining thereto required of him by the Commissioner under sub-section (1)." As per section 36-A(1), it casts a duty on every bank, clearing and forwarding agent as well as transporters to give proper information to the Commissioner and in the event of not furnishing proper information to the Commissioner, it has been made penal under sub-section (2). Therefore, it is apparent that the Commissioner has been given this power as a regulatory measure to enforce the provisions of the Act for evasion of taxes. It cannot be said that the assessing authority had no power to impose a penalty in case of failure to furnish information. 4. in the present case on account of breach on the part of the assessee, the penalty has been imposed and we are of the opinion that such penalty is within the competence of the assessing authority under sub-section (2) of section 36-A of the Act. 5. The view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. We accordingly answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference answered in favour of Revenue.