ORDER V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J. - Petitioner assails annexure C order passed under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 demanding penalty for the items of steel and cement which were allegedly purchased by him without "C" form. The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for registration under the Central Sales Tax Act for several items which he wanted to purchase. In the list of miscellaneous items there were 8 items which included steel and cement. When the registration was issued to him it mentioned only 6 items and it did not include steel and cement. Despite, without registration he purchased the steel and cement items from outside the State. A proceeding initiated under section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and a notice was issued to him invoking section 10(c) of the Act. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that the notice should have been under section 10(b) and not under section 10(c) of the Act. It was also contended by him that he had applied for registration of these items as well and that he committed a bona fide error as he did not notice that these were not included in the registration. He submitted a reply incorporating the plea. After examining the reply of the petitioner the authority imposed penalty under section 10(b) of the Act at the rate of 1.5 times of the tax. The said order is challenged in this proceeding. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Smt. S. Sujatha, learned Government Pleader for the department. The statement of objections filed by the respondent mentions that while mentioning the provisions in annexure B notice it was mentioned mistakenly as section 10(c) instead of section 10(b); the same is stated to be a typographical mistake. 3. The main contention of the petitioner is that imposition of penalty could be only under section 10(b) and not under section 10(c). In view of the statement of objections to the effect that it is only a typographical error, it is not a serious mistake going to root of the matter. Therefore, I do not think the contention of the petitioner based on this error need be further pursued. 4. The other question is whether the bona fide pleaded by the petitioner is genuine. I do not know how this contention can be pursued. Therefore, I do not think the contention of the petitioner based on this error need be further pursued. 4. The other question is whether the bona fide pleaded by the petitioner is genuine. I do not know how this contention can be pursued. A prudent man who makes an application for several items he wanted to purchase would know whether his application is granted. If out of eight items, six alone are granted, it means, as regards two, the application stands rejected. He cannot entertain any misunderstanding in this behalf. It means he was fully aware that out of 8 items he had applied 6 items alone were permitted and the authorities have refused registration for two items. If that is so, then the petitioner cannot contend that there is bona fide mistake. 5. Section 10(b) of the Act deals with a person who deals with the goods as if it is covered by the certificate of registration. The statute under section 10-A provides that in a given circumstance the authority can impose on the assessee by way of penalty an amount equivalent to one and half times the tax which would have been payable as penalty. The provisions only indicate the maximum penalty that can be levied. There should be an assessment of the quantum to be levied as penalty. It should be decided by applying the mind. In this case there is no such application of mind by the authority while imposing penalty. Merely because section 10(b) stipulates the quantum, the order is passed imposing the levy. I, therefore quash annexure C notice. The assessing authority is directed to re-consider the issue and pass fresh orders under section 10(b) read with section 10-A of the Act. I am informed that 30 per cent of the amount as demanded by the authority has already been paid by the petitioner. In view of the circumstances there is no necessity to make any payment as a precondition for giving an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner shall appear before the assessing authority on February 20, 1998 and thereafter the assessing authority will pass fresh orders within three weeks thereof It is made clear that there will be no further notice to the petitioner to appear before the authority as he has took notice before this Court itself. The writ petition stands disposed of as above. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.