JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. - Petitioner is a registered dealer. For the assessment year 1995-96, the petitioner was assessed to taxable turnover of Rs. 7,56,700 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Subsequently, notice was issued that the petitioner had paid tax on purchase of boiler equipments and furnace oil from registered dealer in other State by issuing "C" form declaration even though such items were not covered under the C.S.T. registration certificate at the time of such purchase. Subsequently, the petitioner has applied for inclusion of furnace oil in the C.S.T. certificate on September 28, 1995. Since the purchases were effected prior to the period of September 28, 1995, such purchases were not entitled for concessional rate of tax at 4 per cent. Accordingly, a notice was issued proposing to impose penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner in its objection indicated that purchase of boiler equipments and furnace oil against "C" forms had been made under a bona fide belief and as such penalty should not have been levied. The assessing officer did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and imposed penalty. The petitioner filed appeal. The appellate authority, however, reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,000 by considering that the appellant was exporter of textiles and "...... it is very much essential for them to purchase items mentioned in the assessment order, such as labels, packing strips, polybags, hessian cloth, etc.". The Special Commissioner and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes thereafter initiated a suo motu revision and issued show cause notice. The petitioner in reply to such show cause notice indicated that there was no mens rea and reiterated the contentions raised before the assessment officer. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that even though the assessment officer had referred to purchase of boiler equipments and furnace oil, the appellate authority had considered the matter as if the purchase was in respect of materials such as labels, packing strips, polybags, etc. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that there was no application of mind by the appellate authority and ultimately such order of the appellate authority was set aside and the order passed by the assessment officer was confirmed. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order of the revisional authority. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that there was no application of mind by the appellate authority and ultimately such order of the appellate authority was set aside and the order passed by the assessment officer was confirmed. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order of the revisional authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that before imposing penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the concerned authority is required to come to a conclusion regarding mens rea of the dealer. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner did not have the requisite mens rea and "C" form had been utilised on a bona fide belief that the petitioner was entitled to purchase articles by using "C" forms. It has been submitted by the petitioner that even though such a specific contention has been raised, the revisional authority has not given any categorical finding. It is further submitted that, if the appellate authority did not apply his mind, the proper course for the revisional authority is to set aside the order of the appellate authority and remand the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration. In view of the provisions contained in section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and in view of the decision reported in [1998] 109 STC 392 (Mad.) (Coronation Arts Crafts v. State of Tamil Nadu), it is obvious that the question of mens rea of a dealer is a requisite consideration. The petitioner had raised a plea that "C" form had been issued on the basis of bona fide consideration. It is of course true that the original authority has not accepted such a contention. However, the matter had been challenged in appeal by the present petitioner. Unfortunately, however, the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the petitioner on a total different conclusion which had no nexus with the contentions raised. Therefore, the revisional authority was obviously right in observing that the order passed by the appellate authority is without application of judicial mind. Once such a conclusion was reached, the revisional authority should have considered independently regarding the plea of bona fide raised by the petitioner or should have remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration. Therefore, the revisional authority was obviously right in observing that the order passed by the appellate authority is without application of judicial mind. Once such a conclusion was reached, the revisional authority should have considered independently regarding the plea of bona fide raised by the petitioner or should have remanded the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration. In the present case, the revisional authority after coming to a conclusion that the order passed by the appellate authority was vitiated by non-application of judicial mind, confirmed the order of the assessing authority without any further deliberation on the question as to whether there is requisite mens rea or not. Even assuming that there is mens rea, the extent of penalty to be imposed has not been considered. Since the order of the revisional authority is silent on these aspects, the order passed by the revisional authority is quashed and the matter is remanded to the revisional authority for fresh consideration. The matter shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated July 24, 2001 passed by the revisional authority is quashed and the matter is remanded to the revisional authority for fresh consideration. The matter may be finalised within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. Writ petition allowed.