Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER No. 1 Company registered under the Companies Act is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of yarn. It is registered dealer under the Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. ( 2. ) THE petitioner Company established a new Industrial Unit at chhaigaon Makhan District Khandwa. It was granted eligibility certificate from payment of Commercial Tax and Central Sales Tax. It was also granted certificate (Annexure P-1) of eligibility for exemption of Entry Tax for a period of five years w. e. f. 13-2-1998 to 12-2-2003 under the Entry Tax Act, 1976. ( 3. ) DURING the assessment proceeding for the financial year 1999-2000 the petitioner was asked by the second respondent to explain as to why the bills in respect of sales to M/s. Anupam Textiles. Burhanpur did not bear the rubber seal of "local goods for Khandwa, Entry Tax not paid" as required under Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner offered its explanation stating that it has sold its own manufactured goods giving necessary particulars in the sale bills about the exemption from tax and also issued requisite declarations to the purchasing dealers of goods being manufactured by it. It was further slated by the petitioner that the purchasing dealer who was liable to pay the tax for causing entry in his local area has paid the entry tax. That there was no intention to evade the tax by non-affixation of rubber seal. It was also stated that the presumption under Section 7 (5) of the entry Tax Act, being rebutable therefore, no penalty can be levied having regard to the explanation offered by it. ( 4. ) THE Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax after considering the petitioners explanation was of the view that by not affixing the rubber seal as required under Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act the petitioner has facilitated the evasion of tax to the purchasing dealer M/s. Anupam Textiles, burhanpur. Having held so, the said authority imposed upon the petitioner five times penalty of the amount of entry tax payable vide its order dated 28-1-2003 (Annexure P-6 ). Against this order dated 28-1-2003 the petitioner filed revision No. 158/r/03/khandwa before the Additional Commissioner, commercial Tax, Bhopal. The said Revision has been dismissed vide order dated 9-5-2003 (Annexure P-8 ). Having held so, the said authority imposed upon the petitioner five times penalty of the amount of entry tax payable vide its order dated 28-1-2003 (Annexure P-6 ). Against this order dated 28-1-2003 the petitioner filed revision No. 158/r/03/khandwa before the Additional Commissioner, commercial Tax, Bhopal. The said Revision has been dismissed vide order dated 9-5-2003 (Annexure P-8 ). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition. ( 5. ) THE case of the petitioners is that in view of the details given in the bills of sale it was clear that the goods were manufactured at Chhaigaon makhan, Khandwa and sold at Burhanpur. The seal was affixed on the bills to the effect that "goods sold are manufactured by Industrial Unit holding eligibility certificate for exemption and are exempt from payment of tax commercial Tax not paid". In the circumstances, there was no violation or breach of Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act. The purchasing dealer M/s. Anupam Textiles, Burhanpur having paid entry tax on the goods sold to it, there was no evasion of tax by the purchasing dealer. The petitioner stated that the purchasing dealer having paid the tax no loss has been caused to the revenue, therefore, no penalty could have been imposed. It is further stated that levy of penalty of five times of the entry tax is excessive and unjust. ( 6. ) THE respondents stated that the petitioner having failed to comply with the requirement of Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act by not affixing the rubber seal on the sale bills to the effect "local goods for the area, entry tax not paid" it has facilitated the purchasing dealer to evade the tax. The purchasing dealer M/s. Anupam Textiles did not pay the tax, but in the assessment proceedings claimed that the goods purchased by him from the petitioner are tax paid goods. The purchasing dealer raised a specific plea that since no rubber seal was affixed on the bills as required under Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act he is not liable to pay the tax. In support the respondents have placed on record the assessment order (Annexure P-9) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, commercial Tax in respect of purchasing dealer M/s. Anupam Textiles. ( 7. ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents. ( 8. In support the respondents have placed on record the assessment order (Annexure P-9) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, commercial Tax in respect of purchasing dealer M/s. Anupam Textiles. ( 7. ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents. ( 8. ) SECTION 7 (1) and (5) of the Entry Tax Act which is relevant for deciding the question involved in this petition read thus :-Section 7 (1): " (1) Every registered dealer who, in the course of his business, manufactures, produces or grows any goods specified Schedule II in a local area in such manner that the goods become local goods in relation to that local area, shall, on the sale of such local goods to any other registered dealer, issue to him a bill, invoice or cash memo specifically stating in such manner as may be prescribed, that the goods being sold are local goods in relation to such local area and that no entry tax has been paid on such goods. " Section 7 (5): " (5) Where a registered dealer referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) has, in the course of his business, sold local goods to other registered dealers and has failed to make the statement referred to in sub-section (1), it shall be presumed that he has facilitated the evasion of entry tax on the local goods so sold and accordingly unless the contrary is proved by him, he shall be liable to pay penalty which shall not be less than two times, but shall not exceed five times of the amount of entry tax payable on such goods as if they were not goods of focal origin. " ( 9. ) ADMITTEDLY the yarn manufactured by the petitioner is not exempted from payment of Entry Tax but the raw material used by the petitioner for the purposes of manufacturing of the yarn is exempted from Entry Tax. In order to substantiate its plea that the bills are having the requisite seal and information the petitioner has filed copies of the sale bills as Annexure P-4. However, on a close scrutiny of the said bills in my considered view the information and the rubber seal affixed on it lacks the requirement of Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act. However, on a close scrutiny of the said bills in my considered view the information and the rubber seal affixed on it lacks the requirement of Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act. The rubber seal affixed on the bills is in relation to commercial tax and there is no mention about goods being sold are local goods for the area and no entry tax has been paid on the goods. The other details on the bills cannot be said to be fulfillment of the requirement of Section 7 (1) of the entry Tax Act. Thus, the requirement of Section 7 (1) of the Entry Tax Act is missing from the bills. There is absolutely no explanation from the petitioners that as to why rubber seal about the requirement of Section 7 (1) of the Entry tax Act has not been affixed on the bills. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption about facilitated the evasion of Entry Tax. ( 10. ) THE assessment order (Annexure P-9) in respect of the purchasing dealer M/s. Anupam Textiles demonstrates that apart from raising various grounds the purchasing dealer had taken a shelter for not depositing the entry tax by raising a specific plea that since the petitioner from whom he had purchased the yarn had not affixed the rubber seal that "no entry tax has been paid", therefore, he is not liable and required to pay the entry tax. This plea was made available to the purchasing dealer by the act of the petitioner of not affixing the rubber seal on the bills as required to be affixed under Section 7 (1)of the Entry Tax Act and thereby the petitioner had facilitated the purchasing dealer for the evasion of entry tax, for which the petitioner is liable to pay penalty under Section 7 (5) of the Entry Tax Act. The contention of the petitioner that the purchasing dealer has paid the tax and, therefore, there is no justification in making it liable for penalty is fallacious. In fact the purchasing dealer did not pay the Entry Tax and raised the aforesaid plea, which was made available to him by the non-affixation of rubber seal on the sale bills by the petitioner. In fact the purchasing dealer did not pay the Entry Tax and raised the aforesaid plea, which was made available to him by the non-affixation of rubber seal on the sale bills by the petitioner. In the circumstances, even if the purchasing dealer has deposited the tax at subsequent stage the petitioner cannot be absolved from its liability of non-affixation of required rubber seal which facilitated the purchasing dealer, at the first instance, to evade the tax. Thus, in my considered view by non-affixure of rubber seal the petitioner facilitated the purchasing dealer to evade the tax and became liable to pay penalty. ( 11. ) NOW coming to the contention of the petitioner that the penalty of five times is excessive and just. It is to be noted that there is no material on record to show that after the assessment order (Annexure P-9) passed in respect of the purchasing dealer, the purchasing dealer has deposited the entry tax. However, this aspect was relevant for fixing the quantum of penalty. The Revisional authority has to ascertain the correctness of the aforesaid submission of the petition. On going through the order imposing penalty of five times of entry tax, i find that no reasons have been assigned by the authorities for imposing maximum penalty of five times of the entry tax payable. ( 12. ) IN the circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires to be remitted to the Revisional Authority for reconsideration about quantum of penalty. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure P-8 so far as it relates to imposition of penalty of five times of the amount of Entry Tax is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bhopal to impose appropriate penalty on the petitioner having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after affording to the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated. No orders as to the costs.