Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER is an authorised dealer of M/s. Kinetic company and is involved in the business of sale of scooters and motor cycles manufactured by the said company. Petitioner is a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "an Act" ). ( 2. ) FOR the year 1999-2000, the assessment was finalised by respondent No. 1, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax on March 28, 2003 vide order annexure P1 and it is held that the dealer has not paid the monthly tax within time and has also not deposited value added tax (hereinafter referred to as "vat") as per return. The VAT is deposited on less amount. Show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why penalty be not imposed under Section 69 of the Act. ( 3. ) THE petitioner contended that he has not suppressed any fact and expenses on the workshop and due to difference of opinion less tax was deposited and that he has not suppressed the fact in his return. Therefore, on account of delay in payment of tax, interest of Rs. 40,891 was imposed and penalty of Rs. 400 for not submitting stock list was imposed. For the purpose of entry tax for the year 1999-2000, order, annexure P2, was passed wherein it was held that the return filed by the petitioner is false and that it has not paid tax by furnishing false information. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for penalty under Section 69 of the Act and notices were directed to be issued for penalty under Section 69 of the Act. The notices were issued to the petitioner vide annexure P3. ( 4. ) IN reply to notice under Section 69, petitioner contended that since he has filed an appeal against the assessment order, the proceedings for recovery of fine under Section 69 be stayed. However, penalty of Rs. 8,07,996 is imposed against the appellant. Against the said order, revision was filed by the petitioner. In the revision, it is held that at the time of hearing, petitioner was directed to submit purchase bills. Repeated opportunities were given to the petitioner and after repeated opportunities photocopies of bills were submitted. Revisional authority held that the lower portion of bills is torn and it appeared to revisional authority that the goods were produced locally, and their bills were torn by the petitioner. Repeated opportunities were given to the petitioner and after repeated opportunities photocopies of bills were submitted. Revisional authority held that the lower portion of bills is torn and it appeared to revisional authority that the goods were produced locally, and their bills were torn by the petitioner. ( 5. ) PETITIONER has also filed the tax exemption certificate issued in favour of M/s. Kinetic Motors Limited, Pithampur and submitted that the said firm is exempted from payment of tax for its production in the State of Madhya Pradesh and since the vehicles produced by the said firm is sold to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay the entry tax. The said produced vehicles were entered into the local area, Jabalpur and were liable for the entry tax and affirmed the order imposing penalty under Section 69 of the Act. ( 6. ) COUNSEL for petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Mohansingh and Sons v. Commissioner of Sales Tax reported in [1996] 101 STC 41 : [1996] 29 VKN 243 and invited attention to para 16 of the order wherein it is held that absence of rubber stamp endorsement cannot, of course, be conclusive. There may be a variety of reasons why the rubber stamp has not been affixed. One is that the goods are really not local goods and tax had been paid or tax liability had been incurred. Another is that seal had not been affixed on account of negligence or carelessness. The assessee certainly can take advantage of the prima facie import of absence of rubber stamp. It is then for the Revenue to collect materials to indicate that the goods were not subjected to entry into local area and taxable event had not occurred earlier and the absence of rubber stamp is deliberate and is not accidental or negligent. ( 7. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that revisional authority as well as assessing authority has not considered the liability settled by the Full Bench of this court. ( 8. ) COUNSEL for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the revisional authority was satisfied that non-furnishing of bills containing the rubber stamp was not bona fide and petitioner has wilfully suppressed the bills and torn off the lower portion of the bills and, therefore, penalty under Section 69 is imposed. ( 8. ) COUNSEL for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the revisional authority was satisfied that non-furnishing of bills containing the rubber stamp was not bona fide and petitioner has wilfully suppressed the bills and torn off the lower portion of the bills and, therefore, penalty under Section 69 is imposed. It is for the Revenue to collect material to indicate that the goods had not been subjected to entry in the local area and that taxable event had not occurred earlier and the absence of rubber stamp is deliberate and is not accidental and negligence. ( 9. ) NO such material was collected by Revenue as observed in para 16 of the judgment. Therefore, order of revisional authority as well as assessing authority is set aside with liberty to assessing authority to pass orders after supplying the material collected by the Revenue to the dealer and dealer will have an opportunity to submit its reply for imposition of penalty. ( 10. ) PETITION succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs.