JUDGMENT RAJES KUMAR, J. - These are two revisions against the order of the Tribunal dated May 23, 2007 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. The applicant claimed to be a corporation of the State Government and is registered under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the U.P. Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act"). Admittedly, the applicant was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for coal in the years under consideration. In the year under consideration the applicant purchased coal from outside the State of U.P. and issued form C in respect thereof. The assessing authority initiated the penalty under section 10A of the Act for the violation of clause (b) of section 10 of the Act and after hearing the applicant levied the penalty under section 10A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the orders under section 10(b) of the Act, the applicant filed two appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Kanpur. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Kanpur vide order dated September 29, 2001 allowed the appeals and set aside the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the appeal in part and has upheld the levy of penalty and has held that the applicant has violated the provisions of clause (b) of section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal however levied the penalty at one and a half times of the tax. Heard Sri R. P. Dubey, assisted by Sri Shrikant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is true that the applicant was not registered for the coal under the Central Sales Tax Act but while obtaining the form C from the assessing authority in the details furnished for the use of the earlier form C it was informed that form C was used in the purchases of slack coal. Such details have been furnished as annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. Such details have been furnished as annexure S.A. 1 to the supplementary affidavit. He further submitted that in the letter dated August 1, 1995 to the assessing officer or obtaining form C it was categorically stated that the applicant required form C for the import of slack coal and on the basis of said letter form C was issued. He submitted that the aforesaid fact shows the bona fide on the part of the applicant in using form C for the purchases of coal and therefore the applicant is not liable for penalty. In alternative submitted that levy of penalty at one and half times is excessive. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that admittedly the dealer was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for coal and was not entitled and authorised to issue form C for the purchases of coal but knowing this fact the applicant issued form C for the purchases of coal. Therefore, while making the purchases the dealer has falsely represented that it was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for coal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have perused the order of the Tribunal and authorities below. Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act reads as follows : "10 Penalties. - If any person, - ... (b) being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration." Admittedly the applicant was not registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for coal and as such was not entitled to issue form C for the purchases of coal. It has not been explained that under which circumstances and under which belief the applicant has issued form C while making the purchases of coal while it was not registered. Nothing has been explained in this regard. It has not been explained that under which circumstances and under which belief the applicant has issued form C while making the purchases of coal while it was not registered. Nothing has been explained in this regard. The only explanation given by the applicant was that it has given information from time to time for the use of form C for the purposes of coal and form C have been issued by the assessing authority and, therefore, it was the mistake on the part of the assessing authority in issuing the form C which led the applicant to use such form C for the purposes of coal This explanation of the applicant may be relevant for the purposes of the determination of quantum of penalty but the applicant cannot be allowed to take the advantage of the mistake of the assessing authority. The applicant can claim the benefit on its own rights and entitlement and cannot be allowed to take benefit on account of the negligence or mistake of the authority concerned for which it was not legally entitled. It was the applicant who has to examine while issuing form C that whether it was entitled to issue form "C" or not. If the applicant has issued the form C for which it was not entitled it amounts to making a false representation and the penalty has rightly been levied under section 10(b) of the Act. Having regard to the fact that the applicant from time to time informed the assessing authority about the use of form C for the coal and still the form C have been issued to the applicant the amount of penalty is reduced to minimum. It will be equal to the tax which is four per cent on the amount of Rs. 25,50,111 in the assessment year 1997-98 which comes to Rs. 1,02,004.44 and four per cent on the amount of Rs. 16,98,286 in the assessment year 1996-97 which comes to Rs. 67,931.44. In the result, both the revisions are allowed in part. The amount of penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,02,004.44 and Rs. 67,931.44 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively.