JUDGMENT 1. These revision petitions filed by the Revenue against the order of 1. Tax Board dated 19.5.2004 allowing the assessee's appeals No. 107/2004 and 108/2004, M/s. Metro Appliances Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner and order of the Tax Board dated 16.6.2004 allowing the assessee's appeals No. 1407/2003, 1408/2003 and 1409/2003 raise a common point and therefore, all these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The assessee M/s. Metro Appliances Ltd., Jaipur sold ceiling fans to the co-operative society in the Police Department of State of Rajasthan, a registered dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 during the relevant A.Y. 1998-99 and 1999-2000 at the concessional rate of 4% against the declaration forms given by the said purchasing dealer in Form No. ST-17 prescribed under Section 10(3) read with Rule 23 of the RST Rules, 1995. 3. The assessing authority imposed additional tax on the assessee, the selling dealer, on the ground that the purchasing dealer, the co-operative society of the Police Department was not a department of the State Government and therefore, it was not entitled to issue declaration in Form No. ST-17 for purchase of such ceiling fans at the concessional rate of 4% and accordingly, he imposed additional tax and interest thereon alongwith penalty on the assessee under Section 65 of the Act. The assessee carried the matter to the first appellate authority, namely, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur who confirmed the assessment order to the extent of imposition of tax and interest by the assessing authority, however, the penalty imposed under Section 65 of the Act was set aside by the appellate authority as the transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tax Board who allowed the appeals of the assessee vide order dated 19.5.2004 holding that no additional tax could be imposed on the assessee, the selling dealer in the aforesaid circumstances. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tax Board, the Revenue has filed these revision petitions before this Court under Section 86 of the RST Act. 4. Both the learned counsel were heard at length and by agreement between the counsels, these revision petitions are being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 5. Mr. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tax Board, the Revenue has filed these revision petitions before this Court under Section 86 of the RST Act. 4. Both the learned counsel were heard at length and by agreement between the counsels, these revision petitions are being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 5. Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the conditions of furnishing declaration in Form No. ST-17 is a mandatory condition under the provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act read with relevant Rule 23 and therefore, since the purchasing dealer, namely, the co-operative society of the Police Department who purchased the ceiling fans from the assessee against such declaration forms, though in law, it was not entitled to issue such declaration forms, therefore, the assessing authority was justified in imposing such additional tax and interest on the assessee, the selling dealer for the relevant period. He submitted that both the appellate authorities have erred in setting aside such assessment order and the levy of additional tax, interest and penalty on the assessee deserves to be restored by allowing these revision petitions. 6. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the Revenue are strongly opposed by Mr. J.N. Sharma and Mr. Alkesh Sharma, learned counsels appearing for the respondent assessee and they submitted that the declaration in No. ST-17 forms were issued by the concerned authority of the department to the purchasing dealer fully being aware of the legal character and composition of the same and with the presumed knowledge that such declaration forms would be utilised by them for purchases of materials at concessional rate, meant for resale to the Police personnel in the Police Department of the State Government and therefore, the selling dealer cannot be deprived of the concessional rate of tax which it charged from the purchasing dealer on the strength of valid declaration forms in ST-17 supplied by them against such sale of ceiling fans and the assessee, selling dealer, cannot be saddled with the liability of additional tax and interest thereon, much less the penalty and therefore, they urged that the impugned order of the Tax Board was perfectly justified and the present revision petitions of the Revenue being misconceived deserve to be rejected by this court. 7. 7. Section 10 of the RST Act, 1994, which is relevant for the present controversy, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "10. Levy of tax on raw material and processing articles. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4, but subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, the rate of tax payable on the sale to or purchase by a registered dealer of any raw material for the manufacture in the State of goods for sale by him within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export outside the territory of India shall be at such concessional rate as may be notified by the State Government. (2) where, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard it is determined that a registered dealer has paid tax at a concessional rate under sub-section (1) and the goods are not utilised by him for the purpose specified in the said sub-section, he shall be liable to pay the difference of the amount of tax which would have been liable at full rate and the amount of tax paid under sub-section (1) with interest at the rate of two percent per month. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4, and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, sale to or purchase by a registered dealer of articles (other than raw materials) specified in the certificate of registration of the registered dealer purchasing the articles and required by him for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in mining or in generation or distribution of electricity shall, unless the articles are taxable at the lower rate, be liable to tax at four per cent on the condition that the dealer selling the articles shall furnish to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner, a prescribed declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the articles are sold. (4) Where after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, it is decided that the articles purchased under sub-section (3) are utilised by the purchasing dealer for any purpose other than those specified in the said sub-section or while purchasing any articles he represents wrongly that such articles are covered by his certificate of registration as specified in sub-section (3), he shall be liable to pay the difference between the amount of tax which would have been leviable on the purchase price of such articles at the full rate and the amount of tax paid under sub-section (3) of this Section with interest at the rate of two percent per month." 8. Rule 23 providing for declaration in Form No. ST-17 to the relevant extent is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "23. Furnishing of declaration forms for claiming concessions. (1) (a) A dealer, who claims exemption from payment of tax or payment of tax at a concessional rate or non-liability to pay tax, on the sales made to a registered dealer of goods.- (i) for resale within the State; or (ii) for sale in the course of inter-State trade or commerce; or (iii) for being used as raw material under sub-section (1) of Section 10; or (iv) for being used as processing articles under sub-section (3) of Section 10; or (v) for being used or disposed off in accordance with any condition specified in a notification; shall obtain a declaration form from the purchasing dealer in form ST 17 duly filled in and signed, and shall furnish all such declaration forms to his assessing authority. (b) A dealer, who claims exemption from payment of tax on sale of goods to another dealer on the ground that the sale of such goods is a sale in the course of export of those goods out of the territory of India within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Sales I-ax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956), shall furnish to his assessing authority a declaration in form ST 17B duly filled in and signed by the exporter. (2)....... (3)........ (2)....... (3)........ (4) The articles referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 10 which a registered dealer may purchase, shall be the articles intended for use by him as processing articles (other than raw materials) such as plant, machinery, equipment, tools, stores, spare parts and accessories in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale or in the mining or in the generation of distribution of electricity. (5) Blank declaration forms ST 17 and ST 17B shall be obtained from the Assistant Commissioner or Commercial Tax Officer, having jurisdiction or from the assessing authority or any other officer authorised by the Commissioner, as the case may be, on payment in Government Treasury, authorised bank or the office of the issuing authority, a sum of Rupees fifty for each book containing twenty five declaration forms. Explanation.-.... 6(a) For obtaining declaration forms referred to in sub-rule (1), the registered dealer shall apply in form ST 16 to the issuing Authority stating his requirement of such forms and shall furnish such other particulars, statements, information and documents as the said authority may require for his satisfaction about the bona fide use of such forms issued to the applicant on previous occasions and the bona fide purpose of the applicant's present requirement of such forms, (b) If the applicant is found to have failed to comply with an order demanding initial or additional security under Section 23, the issuing authority may reject the application. (c) The issuing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing reject the application of the applicant, on being satisfied that he has not made proper use of such forms previously issued to him or that he does not require the forms applied for. (c) The issuing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing reject the application of the applicant, on being satisfied that he has not made proper use of such forms previously issued to him or that he does not require the forms applied for. (d) The issuing authority shall withhold the issue of declaration forms to the applicant, if he has defaulted:- (i) in making of any outstanding demand; or (ii) in paying tax under the provisions of Section 25; or (iii) in furnishing any return or returns in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 and rule 19 of these rules; till such time as the defaults referred to in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are removed or made good; however, where the said authority in a particular case is satisfied that the interest of the State revenue so requires, it may, instead of withholding the declaration forms, issue such forms in such number and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be considered reasonable. (e) Where the issuing authority does not proceed under clauses (b), (c) and (d), it shall issue the requisite number of declaration forms to the applicant or such lesser number of declaration forms which in its opinion, could satisfy the reasonable requirements of the applicant. (7) All declaration forms shall be authenticated by the issuing authority with the date of issue and the period of its validity, while issuing the said forms to the dealer and such forms shall remain valid for three years from the date of issue or for such further extended period of one year, as may be permitted by the issuing authority. (8) No registered dealer to whom declaration forms are issued by the issuing authority shall either directly or otherwise, transfer the same to any other person. (9) Every registered dealer to whom declaration forms referred to in sub-rule (1) are issued by the issuing authority, shall maintain in part A of the register in form ST 16A, a true and complete account of such forms received and shall also maintain in part B thereof a true and complete account of his purchases made on the strength of such forms. (10) Every registered dealer shall keep the declaration forms received by him in safe custody and shall be personally responsible for the loss of Government revenue, if any, directly or indirectly from any theft, loss or destruction thereof. If any such form is stolen, lost or destroyed, the dealer shall immediately report the fact to his assessing authority and shall make appropriate entries in the remarks column of part A of the register in form ST 16A and shall take such further steps to issue public notice of theft, loss or destruction, as the assessing authority may direct. (11) ...... (12) ....... (13) ....... (14) ....... (15) Before furnishing of a declaration form to the selling dealer the purchasing dealer, or any person authorised by him in this behalf shall fill in all the required particulars in the form and shall also affix his signature in the space provided in the form for the purpose. Thereafter, the counterfoil of the form' shall be retained by the purchasing dealer and the other portions marked "original" and "duplicate" shall be handed over by him to the selling dealer. (16) No purchasing, dealer shall furnish and no selling dealer shall accept a declaration form, which is (i) forged or fake or not obtained under sub-rule (6); or (ii) time barred for being used under sub-rule (7); or (iii) reported stolen, lost or destroyed under sub-rule (10); or (iv) declared obsolete and invalid by the State Government under sub-rule (20) (17) Any unused declaration form or forms remaining in stock with a registered dealer on the permanent discontinuance or closure of his business shall be surrendered by him to his assessing authority within a period of 30 days from the date of such discontinuance or closure. (18) A dealer, who claims to have made such sales as are envisaged in sub-rule (1) to another dealer, shall in respect of such claims produce before the assessing authority the portion marked "original" of the declaration form received by him from the purchasing dealer. In case of loss of the "original" foil of the declaration form, the assessing authority may permit the selling dealer to produce the "duplicate" foil thereof. (19) ...... (20) ...... 9. In case of loss of the "original" foil of the declaration form, the assessing authority may permit the selling dealer to produce the "duplicate" foil thereof. (19) ...... (20) ...... 9. The crux of the matter is as to whether the selling dealer who relied upon the declaration forms furnished to him by another registered dealer, namely, the purchasing dealer, should be proceeded against for recovery of additional or remaining tax at the full rate of tax ignoring the concessional rate of tax based on such declaration forms or is it the purchasing dealer who furnished such declaration forms should be proceeded against for recovery of such additional or balance amount of tax. 10. It is true that selling dealer who in law is under an obligation to collect proper rate of sales tax on the goods sold by him collects only the concessional rate of tax in particular circumstances relying on the declaration forms given by the purchasing dealers and such declaration forms in original are furnished by the selling dealer to his assessing authority in support of or justifying the collection of the tax only at the concessional and it is only at a later point of time when assessment procedure is undertaken if some defect in the declaration form is found by the assessing authority of the selling dealer that the concessional rate of tax would not be available, but the question is who should bear the brunt? The obvious and plain answer to the said question is that it is the person who has furnished such declaration form and not the person who has relied upon the same, should bear such brunt or be held responsible for payment of additional tax, if any. In the ordinary course of business while dealing with various purchasing dealers, the selling dealer cannot be expected to hold any detailed enquiry, nor he has any legal obligation to do so under the Act and the Rules, to establish the genuineness, correctness, validity or justification on the part of the purchasing dealers to furnish the relevant declaration forms on the strength of which the selling dealer collects only concessional rate of tax from him and not the full rate of tax. Admittedly such declaration forms are issued to the purchasing dealers who are also registered dealers of the same department by the assessing authority having jurisdiction over such purchasing dealers on fulfillment of certain conditions and for particular purposes. A perusal of Rule 23 quoted above clearly lays down the procedure for application, issuance, keeping stock of utilisation and surrender of unused declaration forms by the registered dealer who gets them issued. If there is any defect in such declaration forms or in law it is later on found that such registered dealer is not entitled to use such declaration forms for particular purposes, then it is that dealer himself who ought to be held responsible for such lacunae in his legal entitlement to furnish such declaration forms to the selling dealer to get the benefit of the concessional rate of tax. It is purchasing dealer who really receives the benefit of the concessional rate of tax and not the selling dealer. The selling dealer merely collects concessional rate of tax on the strength of such declaration forms furnished by the purchasing dealers and not otherwise. If such declaration forms are not furnished by the purchasing dealers, the selling dealer could always collect the full rate of tax from the purchasing dealer. Therefore it is the purchasing dealer who leads the selling dealer to believe in the ordinary course of business that the purchasing dealer is a registered dealer and he is entitled to make such purchases from him at the concessional rate of tax under the relevant provisions of law and relevant notification on the strength of such declaration forms. Therefore, if upon scrutiny, such declaration forms are found to be have not been legally or properly used by the purchasing dealer, it is the purchasing dealer alone who can be proceeded against in law and not the selling dealer. 11. Therefore, if upon scrutiny, such declaration forms are found to be have not been legally or properly used by the purchasing dealer, it is the purchasing dealer alone who can be proceeded against in law and not the selling dealer. 11. The question that when the assessing authority of the selling dealers embarks upon the enquiry during his assessment and finds that such declaration forms are not proper or are defective or that the purchasing dealer was not legally entitled to give such declaration forms to avail concessional rate of tax, the remedy with such assessing authority is not to impose the difference additional tax upon the selling dealer himself but the remedy lies in making a report of the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the purchasing dealer in question to proceed against such purchasing dealer for recovery of the difference amount of tax. Like in the present case, if the assessing authority is allowed to proceed to recover such difference tax from the selling dealer himself without even calling upon the purchasing dealer to establish his legal right to issue such declaration forms for making the particular purchases in question, it would be travesty of the principles of natural justice and law if such difference tax is allowed to be imposed and recovered from the selling dealer. There is no justification for compelling the selling dealer to pay such difference or additional tax denying the concessional rate of tax in such cases, unless of course there is a case of collusion between the purchasing dealer and the selling dealer made out by the Revenue authorities and which is established beyond reasonable doubt after holding enquiry. Even in the case of collusion between the parties, it is either of the dealer, either the selling dealer or the purchasing dealer who can be saddled with such difference tax in case there is an established misuse of declaration forms and it is one of those parties, either of them, who is more at fault who can be saddled with such difference liability. In that case also, the dealer who gets such declaration forms issued from the concerned Revenue authority and furnished such declaration forms without there being a legal entitlement thereto vested in him and thus, defrauded the Revenue of a full rate of tax by availing the concessional rate of tax or exemption in particular transactions that such party would be proceeded against in law. 12. The right of the assessing authority to proceed against the selling dealer in the case of fraud or collusion is also available only if such allegation is made against the selling dealer with precise particulars and not mere wild allegation or general statement of fraud or collusion can empower the assessing authority to proceed against the selling dealer. But the question is where there is no collusion or fraud played upon by the selling dealer and who bonafidely believes that such purchasing dealer had a legal right to use such declaration forms for availing concessional rate of tax on particular sales of goods, then there would be no justification for proceeding against the selling dealer in such cases. It is not the matter of convenience of the Revenue authorities nor it is a matter that the assessing authority of the selling dealer first happens to embark upon such enquiry and find that particular declaration forms have been misused in particular cases, but is the question of jurisdiction as to upon whom the liability in law for payment of such additional or difference tax should be affixed. In the considered opinion of this court, where there is no fraud or collusion alleged against the selling dealer, it is only the purchasing dealer who deserves to be proceeded against for recovery of the difference tax in case it is found that the declaration forms were not legally valid for the particular sale transactions. 13. In the present case, it also appears that the assessing authority has imposed the additional tax, interest and penalty on the selling dealer even without calling upon the purchasing dealer, the co-operative society of the Police Department and holding any enquiry with regard to their legal entitlement to use the declaration in form ST-17 for purchase of ceiling fans from the assessee, the selling dealer, and merely saying that the co-operative society is not a Government department is not enough. What is exactly the character and composition of such co-operative society, who are its shareholders and members whether it is running on no profit no loss basis whether the Government department or the Police Department had full control over it or not, all these may be the relevant considerations while holding that it was or it was not a Government department and whether the declaration forms ST-17 could legally be issued for purchase of ceiling fans in question or not. No enquiry of this nature appears to have been made by the assessing authority as the impugned assessment order does not narrate any such enquiry into these facts. Therefore, without holding this basic enquiry if the additional tax was imposed on the selling dealer, it is all the more unfortunate besides being illegal and unauthorized. 14. Way back in the year 1966, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) The State of Madras v. Radio and Electricals Ltd. & Anr. (1966) 18 STC 222 (SC) , Hon'ble Justice J.C. Shah speaking for the Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court focused on this kind of controversy and observed as under : "The Act seeks to impose tax on transactions, amongst others, of sale and purchase in inter-State trade and commerce. Though the tax under the Act is levied primarily from the seller, the burden is ultimate passed on to the consumers of goods because it enter into the price paid by them. Parliament with a view to reduce the burden on the consumt arising out of multiple taxation has provided in respect of sales of declared goods which have special importance in inter-State trade of commerce, and other classes of goods which are purchased at a, intermediate stage in the stream of trade or commerce, prescribed low rates of taxation, when transactions take place in the course of inter State trade or commerce. Indisputably the seller can have in these. transactions no control over the purchaser. He has to rely upon the representations made to him. Indisputably the seller can have in these. transactions no control over the purchaser. He has to rely upon the representations made to him. He must satisfy himself that the purchaser is a registered dealer, and the goods purchased are specified in his certificate but his duty extends no further., If he is satisfied on these two matters, on a representation made to him in the manner prescribed by the rules and the representation is recorded in the certificate in Form "C" the selling dealer is under no further obligation to see to the application of the goods for the purpose for which it was represented that the goods were intended to be used. If the purchasing dealer misapplies the goods he incurs a penalty under section 10. That penalty is incurred by the purchasing dealer and cannot be visited upon the selling dealer. The selling dealer is under the Act authorised to collect from the purchasing dealer the amount payable by him as tax on the transaction, and he can collect that amount only in the light of the declaration mentioned in the certificate in Form 'C'. He cannot hold an enquiry whether the notified authority who issued the certificate of registration acted properly, or ascertain whether the purchaser, notwithstanding the declaration, was likely to use the goods for a purpose other than the purpose mentioned in the certificate in Form 'C'. There is noting in the Act or the rules that for infraction of the law committed by the purchasing dealer by misapplication of the goods after he purchase them, or for any fraudulent misrepresentation by him, penalty may be visited upon the selling dealer. 15. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of (2) Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Pholison Trading Corporation (1988) 69 STC 236 (All.) dealing with Rule 12-A and form No. III-A of the UP Sales Tax Rules, 1948 held as under : "A duty is cast upon both the purchasing dealer and selling dealer to issue and receive form III-A prescribed under rule 12-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, which has not been declared obsolete or invalid. When the purchasing dealer obtains the form III-A from the sales tax office, it means that the department was satisfied about the genuineness of the purchasing dealer and about the requisition that the same was genuine and reasonable, and there was nothing for the selling dealer to entertain any doubt about the form passed on to it by the purchasing dealer. If the purchasing dealer was bogus or fictitious, the department would have made a declaration giving full description of the form issued to the purchasing dealer that such form should not be accepted by any selling dealer and in the absence of any such declaration the selling dealer cannot be expected to presume that the form III-A issued by the purchasing dealer was not in order. The selling dealer has nothing to do with the misrepresentation of the purchasing dealer and therefore he is entitled to claim exemption on the basis of form admittedly issued to the purchasing dealer." 16. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court ,Division Bench in the case of (3) United Steel & Allied Industries v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1988) 70 STC 114 (AP) , while dealing with a controversy where the 'C' forms in question were used for concessional rate of tax on inter-State sale made on the registered dealers where the registration of the, purchasing dealers had already been cancelled at the time of sales, found that in such cases the selling dealers who collected 'C' forms in goods faith could not be held liable in this regard. The Hon'ble court held as under: "Held, allowing the petitions, (i) that it was one thing to say that the purchasing dealers certificate of registration was cancelled and quited another to say that such certificate had been surrendered and the petitioner had entered into sale transactions with dealers who did not physically possess the certificate of registration. There was no indication in the notices issued to the petitioner that the parties whose certificates of registration had allegedly been cancelled had surrendered the certificates. There was no indication in the notices issued to the petitioner that the parties whose certificates of registration had allegedly been cancelled had surrendered the certificates. The petitioner could therefore prima facie conclude that the registrations were effective; (ii) that there was also no mention in the notice that the purchasing dealers having failed to surrender the unused C forms consequent upon cancellation of their certificates of registration, as required under rule 4-A(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Bombay) Rules, 1957, the authorities concerned had taken action in terms of the proviso to rule 4-A(4) to have such forms declared invalid by a notification in the Official Gazette, nor was there any reference to the copy of such notification having been forwarded to the State Government. The purchasing dealers continued to be in possession of C forms without compliance with the provisions of the proviso to rule 4-A(4) and in such circumstances, the petitioner, effecting sales to such purchasing dealers, was entitled to proceed on the basis that their certificates of registration were effective and valid, and there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt the veracity of those forms or enter into any detailed investigation into the matter; and (iii) that, therefore, the petitioner, having bona fide collected the C forms and claiming concessonal rate of tax on their basis, had discharged the initial onus that lay on it to show that the inter-State sales were covered by C forms. The assessing authority was bound to admit the claim. The assessments were thereforequashed as illegal and unjustified. 17. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of (4) K.G. Industries v. Sales Tax Officer & Ors. (1999) 113 STC 49 (MP) , held as under: "Held allowing the petitions that bare reading of rule 51 made it clear that it was not within the domain of the selling dealer to hold an inquiry with regard to the purpose for which the materials have been purchased by the purchasing dealer. The purchaser had furnished necessary declaration forms from the purchasing dealer. Nothing more was required to be done at the hands of the petitioner. Therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained." 18. The purchaser had furnished necessary declaration forms from the purchasing dealer. Nothing more was required to be done at the hands of the petitioner. Therefore the impugned orders cannot be sustained." 18. This court while dealing with a case of penalty under Section 65 of the Act, where 'C' forms furnished by the purchasing dealers were found to be not genuine, held in the case of (5) ACTO, Ward-I, Rajsamand v. white Marble House (2006) 148 STC 14 (Raj.) , as under: "Held dismissing the petition that the assessing authority had not made any effort to establish the collusion of the selling dealer in production of the false or face C forms before him. In the absence of any enquiry having been held the two appellate authorities were justified in setting aside the penalty under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act upon the selling dealer. This being essentially a finding of fact as to whether or not the selling dealer was responsible in production of such fake or bogus C forms, no question of law arose in the matter." 19. It is further noteworthy that Section 64 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 provides for a penalty for violation of declaration. The said provision is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: "64. Penalty for violation of declaration: Where any dealer uses any declaration form against the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, or after having purchased any goods, other than the goods purchased under Section 10, in respect of which he has made declaration under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, fails without reasonable cause to sue or dispose off the goods in accordance with the declared purpose, the assessing authority may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty in addition to tax payable under sub-section (2) of Section 11, a sum equal to double the amount of tax to extent to which it was not required to be paid by such dealer on the strength of the declaration forms furnished by him." The said provision of Section 64, therefore clearly fastens upon the dealer who uses any declaration from against the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder to pay in addition to tax payable under sub-section (2) of Section 11, a sum equal to double the amount of tax by way of penalty. The said provision further indicates that it is the person who has furnished the declaration form even though not legally entitled to do so, alone can be held liable and not the person, the selling dealer, who bonafidely believes in the legal entitlement of such purchasing dealer to furnish such declaration form and avail the concessional rate of tax. 20. From the aforesaid, it is clear that in the present case, the respondent assessee, the selling dealer could not be saddled with the liability to pay the difference tax, interest thereon or penalty under Section 65 of the Act for the alleged misuse of declaration in form No. ST-17 furnished to him by the purchasing dealer. The Tax Board was, therefore, justified in setting aside the impugned levy of tax, interest and penalty. 21. Consequently, this Court finds no force-in the revision petitions filed by the Revenue and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******