K. L. SHARMA, J. This revision is directed under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, against the judgment and order dated November 25, 1988 of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, whereby the appeal against the imposition of the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Sales Tax Act was partly allowed reducing the amount of penalty from Rs. 19,000 to Rs. 17,000 for the assessment year 1983-84. 2. The applicant is a sole proprietorship concern engaged in the business of purchase and sale of scientific goods, apparatus and electrical goods, etc. In the assessment year 1983-84 he submitted the return and also produced the account books duly maintained by him in the ordinary course of business. The assessing authority accepted the account books and also the return and assessed the tax accordingly on August 25, 1987. The assessing authority noticed that some of the purchases recorded in the account books and imported from outside U. P. were made without submitting form No. 31. The tax assessed for the assessment year 1983-84 was duly paid by the assessee. But later on in September, 1987 the assessing authority initiated the proceedings fore imposition of penalty for the violation of section 28-A of the Sales Tax Act and after rejecting the explanation submitted by the assessee imposed a sum of Rs. 19,000 as penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act, relying upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154. The assessee could not succeed in his first appeal against the imposition of the penalty and afterwards in the second appeal wherein the learned Tribunal reduced the amount of penalty only by Rs. 2,000. 3. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 4. The only question arising for determination in this revision is whether the penalty imposed by the authority under the Sales Tax Act was justified under law and on facts. 5. Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that since the assessee had paid the due tax on all the imported goods including those in respect of which form No. 31 was not furnished, there does not arise any case for imposition of penalty. 5. Mr. Bharat Ji Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that since the assessee had paid the due tax on all the imported goods including those in respect of which form No. 31 was not furnished, there does not arise any case for imposition of penalty. He has referred to the finding of fact recorded by the learned assessing authority to the effect that all the purchase valued at Rs. 3,09,832. 90 have been duly recorded in the account books which have been verified and due tax has been accordingly paid. He has therefore, submitted that since there was no intention on the part of the assessee to evade tax on the goods imported from outside the State through post for which form No. 31 were inadvertently not furnished. According to him the omission was merely due to negligence on the part of the assessee and nothing more. In support of his contention he has cited the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1983] 53 STC 54; 1983 UPTC 198 and subsequent decision of single Judge of this Court in the cases of Bharat Ply-wood Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 79 STC 400; 1989 UPTC 1097 and Jamco Shoe Factory, Agra v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1995 UPTC 295. 6. In reply Mr. R. D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel cited [1989] 177 ITR 455 (SC); 1989 UPTC 990 (Gujarat Travancore Agency v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala), [1992] 193 ITR 713 (SC); 1992 UPTC 797 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kalyan Das Rastogi) and (1996) 2 JT 79 (SC) (Director of Enforcement v. State of U. P. ). 7. On perusal of these cases cited by the learned counsel for both the sides, I find that in the case of Bharat Plywood Products Ltd. [1990] 79 STC 400 (All.); 1989 UPTC 1097, it was found as a fact that the use of invalid form was not intentional and that too without intention to evade payment of tax and as such no penalty was imposable under the provisions of section 28-A read with section 15-A (1) (o) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. This decision was based on the decision of honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26. The honourable Supreme Court was also concerned with a case of levy of penalty on the delinquent assessee for its failure to register itself as a dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court in that case has held as under : " 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 to 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. 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. Those in charge of the affairs of the company in failing to register the company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out. " 8. According to this decision of the honourable Supreme Court this Court has held that the assessee was not liable to pay any penalty if there is only a technical default without anything more on his part. This decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been constantly followed in two other cases mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, I need not refer to the facts of those two cases. 9. This decision of the Division Bench of this Court has been constantly followed in two other cases mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, I need not refer to the facts of those two cases. 9. The cases cited by the learned Standing Counsel do not relate to the technical violation under the U. P. Sales Tax Act or under any other State Sales Tax Act or Central Sales Tax Act. The case of Gujarat Travancore Agency [1989] 177 ITR 455 (SC); 1989 UPTC 990 (SC), relates to the question of imposition of penalty for failure to file return of total income under the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court held that the element of mens rea was not required to be proved in the proceeding taken by the Income-tax Officer under section 271 (1) (a) of the Income-tax Act against the assessee. 10. The case of Kalyan Das Rastogi [1992] 193 ITR 713 (SC); 1992 UPTC 797, also relates to the failure of the assessee to furnish return of total income without reasonable cause. In this case also the honourable Supreme Court followed the earlier decision in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency [1989] 177 ITR 455 (SC); 1989 UPTC 990 (SC ). 11. The case of Director of Enforcement v. State of U. P. (1996) 2 JT 79 (SC) relates to violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The honourable Supreme Court held that the proceedings under the Act are adjudicatory in nature, the question of the element of mens rea does not arise. 12. In my opinion, these decisions under the Acts different from the Sales Tax Act cannot be relied upon when the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26 has clearly held after analysing the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act that the failure to register company as a dealer was merely a technical omission and nothing more and it does not warrant imposition of penalty. This Court has followed this decision of the honourable Supreme Court consistently in all the decisions subsequent to the decision in the case of Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All.); 1983 UPTC 198. As such the decision in the earlier case of Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154 stand overruled and cannot be considered as a binding precedent on any authority. 13. As such the decision in the earlier case of Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154 stand overruled and cannot be considered as a binding precedent on any authority. 13. In view of the admitted facts of the case and the clear finding of facts recorded by the assessing authority failure to furnish the form No. 31 for the purchase made from outside U. P. by post was merely a technical omission caused by lack of knowledge or negligence but not with any intention to evade tax as the assessee had already recorded all the purchases in his account books which were duly verified and the tax thereon has been deposited by the assessee. I therefore, hold that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the imposition of penalty under section 28-A read with section 15-A (1) (o) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was not justified in law and on facts. Consequently the imposition of penalty by the assessing authority and the confirmation thereof by the appellate authorities is liable to be quashed. 14. For the aforesaid reasons this revision is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated September 14, 1987 passed by the assessing authority for the assessment year 1983-84 and the appellate order dated November 26, 1987 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Aligarh, and the order dated November 25, 1988 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal are hereby quashed. The amount of penalty deposited with the assessing authority in compliance with the interim direction dated April 5, 1989 given by this Court at the time of admission of this revision shall be refunded to the assessee within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 15. A certified copy of this judgment be issued within three days on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed. .