JUDGMENT N. Pandey, J. - These are references under Section 33 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Section 48 of the Bihar Finance Act to this Court by the Chairman, Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. 2. The assessee M/s Kumar Medico was assessed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,52,587.29 under Section 17(2)(a) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna East Circle, vide his order dated 3.3.1981. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Appeals, who dismissed the appeal on 26.9.1981 with modification of the order under appeal. Feeling aggrieved, revision petitions were preferred by the assessee before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal. The revision was of course dismissed reducing the amount of penalty from Rs. 81,168.67 to Rs. 10,000/-. 3. On behalf of the assessee as well as revenue, two separate petitions were filed on 23.12.1983 and 14.12.1983 before the Tribunal with a request to refer the questions of law before this Court for opinion. 4. The tribunal after considering the request of the parties, referred the following questions to this court: "1. Whether the learned Tribunal consisting only of two members at the time had the jurisdiction to call back the revision case to its jurisdiction and to hear and determine it after the same had been referred to the full bench by its order dated 10.2.82 and whether after the said reference to the full bench, no other bench had any manner of jurisdiction in the matter of the said revision case? 2. Whether in the light of the findings of the learned Tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 20 of its revision order, that there were no discrepancies in the purchase figures, and errors were only in putting the monthly totals of both taxable and tax paid goods and in view of the admitted position that entire tax paid purchases were supported with requisite declarations in Form IXC and other evidences, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the taxation of the alleged difference between the record total and actual total of tax paid sales? 3. Whether on a true construction of the provisions of Section 19(1)(b) and the powers conferred on the Tribunal, the Tribunal is competent in law to reduce the quantum of penalty below the minimum prescribed by Section 19(1)(b)." 5. Mr. 3. Whether on a true construction of the provisions of Section 19(1)(b) and the powers conferred on the Tribunal, the Tribunal is competent in law to reduce the quantum of penalty below the minimum prescribed by Section 19(1)(b)." 5. Mr. Sahay in support of question no.1, contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the case was earlier referred by the Chairman of the Tribunal before a larger Bench, consisting of three members, it was not open to the two members to transfer the same to other Bench comprising of only two members. Thus, hearing of the revision by the two members on such transfer was illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. In our view, such a question has to be answered in negative. Because a bare reference to the relevant records as well as statement of the parties, the reference of the case to a larger Bench by the Chairman was not with a view to decide any question of law nor any point was referred nor adjudication on which two concurrent Benches had differed. Therefore, if a case is referred by a single member for hearing before a larger Bench and it was re-transferred before a Bench of two members, no irregularity can be pointed out. Therefore, it cannot be argued that order passed by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction. 7. While coming to question no.2, Mr. Sahay contended that in view of a notification under Section 11 (1) of the Bihar Finance Act, specifying certain class of medicines leviable of tax at the first point of sale, with respect to subsequent sale of same good, no levy of tax can be charged. He contended that a bare reference to the assessment order, it would appear that the dealer had filed a return with regard to gross turnover of Rs. 32,06,573.64 out of which he had claimed sales worth Rs.18,93,341.55 paise towards sales tax paid goods at first point by the seller. The rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 13,13,234.09 was shown as sale of taxable goods. But as per the assessing authority total amount with regard to tax paid goods should have been shown at Rs.23,43,000/-. 8. Mr. Sahay contended since the assessing authority himself had declared Rs.23,43,000/- towards tax paid goods, it was incumbent upon him to exclude Rs.4,49,658/- i.e. differential amount from taxable turnover. 13,13,234.09 was shown as sale of taxable goods. But as per the assessing authority total amount with regard to tax paid goods should have been shown at Rs.23,43,000/-. 8. Mr. Sahay contended since the assessing authority himself had declared Rs.23,43,000/- towards tax paid goods, it was incumbent upon him to exclude Rs.4,49,658/- i.e. differential amount from taxable turnover. He contended even the Tribunal also in paragraph 21 of its order has held that on verification of difference in the ledger of the tax paid goods and taxable purchases, no irregularity whatsoever was found. Therefore, it also approved the figure which was accepted by the assessing authority. 9. He therefore, submitted that in view of such a finding of the tribunal, it is thus apparent that the assessing officer has arbitrarily levied tax on the sale price of Rs. 4,49,658/-. Because, according to the assessing officer also, with respect to the tax paid goods, the correct total would come to Rs.23,43,000/- instead of Rs. 18,93,341.55 as shown by the petitioner in the return. Therefore, the assessing authority of the tribunal are not justified to impose tax on such amount. 10. Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that from a bare reference to the order of the assessing officer, it would appear although the assessee had claimed Rs.18,93,341.55 towards tax paid sale 1st point, but he had filed declaration Form IXC only with respect to Rs. 17,39,109.85. Probably he had failed to furnish declaration for full amount of Rs.23,43.000/-. Therefore, the assessing officer had no option to treat only a sale of Rs.18,93,341.55 as tax paid goods. 11. There can be no dispute that as per rules 12(2) and 14 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983, a dealer, who claims that any amount of his turnover should be exempted from sales tax, on account of the goods having been subjected to such tax as per the notification under Section 11 (2) of the Act, will be required to substantiate such claims before the authority prescribed under rule 18, by producing the purchase order and original copy of cash memoranda or bills issued to him and a true declaration in writing from the selling dealer in Form IXC after obtaining from prescribed authority. 12. It would appear from the order of the assessing officer that such requirements were probably not fulfilled by the petitioner. 12. It would appear from the order of the assessing officer that such requirements were probably not fulfilled by the petitioner. Therefore, he refused to grant exemption with respect to the total amount of Rs.23,43.000/-. 13. Although Mr. Sahay contended that the assessee had produced sufficient materials before the assessing officer, with respect to total amount but in our view, in absence of any statement in this regard or specific findings of the authority, it will not be possible to take a different view. In these backgrounds, this question also has to be answered against the assessee. 14. The last question on behalf of the revenue is whether the tribunal was competent in law to reduce the quantum of penalty below the minimum as prescribed under Section 10(1)(b) of the Ordinance (Section 20 (1)(b) of the Act). 15. It appears, the assessing officer had imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 81,168.67, equal to the amount of the tax leviable on the suppressed sales. The appellate authority reduced the amount in proportion to the reduction in the amount of tax consequent upon the reduction of the gross turnover. The Tribunal of coures dismissed the revision application, but reduced the amount of penalty to Rs.10,000/-. 16. Learned Advocate General submitted that the tribunal has in fact committed errors of law in reducing the amount of penalty to Rs.10,000/-. Because as per the provisions of Section 19(1)(b), in a case of incorrect statement of turnover or incorrect particulars regarding sales and purchases, in the return furnished by a dealer, the prescribed authority after observing all the required formalities shall, in addition to any tax which may be assessed under Section 17 impose penalty, in a case falling in clause (a), a sum not exceeding three times but not less than an amount equal to the amount of tax and in a case falling in clause(b) a sum not exceeding two times, but not less than an amount equal to the amount of tax, on the suppressed turnover or on concealed or inorrect particulars. 17. In the present case, since the penalty was imposed under Section 19(1)(b), therefore, it could not be less than an amount equal to an amount of tax on the suppressed turnover or on concealed or incorrect particulars. 18. Though Mr. 17. In the present case, since the penalty was imposed under Section 19(1)(b), therefore, it could not be less than an amount equal to an amount of tax on the suppressed turnover or on concealed or incorrect particulars. 18. Though Mr. Sahay placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. The State of Orissa, (1970) 25 STC 211 , but since facts of the aforesaid case are quite different, the assessee cannot derive any benefit by the ratio laid down in the said case. 19. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Enforcement vs. M/s MCTM Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1966 SC 1100) to show that mens rea as understood under law is not an essential ingredient for holding a delinquent liable to pay penalty. Because as soon as contravention of the statutory obligation is contemplated, liability stands established. 20. In view of the aforesaid findings. I answer this question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Registry is accordingly directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Chairman of the Tribunal. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as costs. P.K. Sarkar, J. - I agree.