ORDER S.K. Seth, J. In this petition, on the admitted facts, the only point for consideration is whether, Respondents were justified in imposing penalty u/s 69 of the M. P. Commercial Act, 1994? Petitioner is a company having registered office at Mumbai. It also holds Registration Certificate and is liable to pay the entry tax as per charging section under the M. P. Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Entry Tax Act' for short) on the goods entered into a local area for use, consumption or sale therein, or in the execution of works contract. During the period from 1-4-1996 to 31-3-1997, indisputably, Petitioner executed works contract of the M/s National Fertilizers Limited and M/s South Eastern Coalfield Limited and as such was liable to pay the entry tax. Petitioner did not deposit full amount of entry tax on the total taxable turnover on the strength of decision of the Board of Revenue (Tribunal) in the case of Raj Construction, Durg v. Commissioner of Soles Tax, reported in (1991) 13 CUR T. J. 145, therefore, Assessing Officer, at the time of passing the assessment order, initiated proceedings and issued a notice to show cause against imposition of penalty u/s 69 of the M.P. Commercial Act. It is pertinent to point out that by virtue of Section 13 of the Entry Tax Act. all machinery provisions of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and after its repeal, M. P. Commercial Tax Act. 1994 are applicable, such as. filing of returns. Payment of tax, and assessment proceedings etc. under the Entry Tax Act. Thus, after affording opportunity of hearing, penalty u/s 69 was imposed. It was maintained in appeal and thereafter in revision by the order impugned, hence this petition. Respondents have filed reply to justify the imposition of penalty. It was contended that Petitioner being a registered dealer, knew all along its liability to pay the entry tax but failed to pay the tax due in time, therefore, is liable to pay the penalty. After having heard rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no merit and substance in the present petition and as such it deserves to be dismissed in view of the following discussion. After having heard rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no merit and substance in the present petition and as such it deserves to be dismissed in view of the following discussion. To appreciate the controversy in the proper perspective, it would be relevant to reproduce provision of Section 69. It reads as under: Section 69. Power of Commissioner or Appellate or Revisional Authority to impose penalty in certain circumstances. - (1) If the Commissioner or the appellate or revisional authority, in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that a dealer has concealed his turnover or the aggregate amount of purchase price in respect of any goods or has furnished false particulars of his sales or purchases as the case may be. in his return or returns for any year or part thereof or has furnished a false return or returns for such period, the Commissioner or the appellate or revisional authority as the case may be, initiate proceedings separately for imposition of penalty under this section. (2)... (3) If the total tax shown as payable according to his return or returns and paid by a dealer for any period or part thereof is less than eighty percent of the total tax assessed u/s 27 such dealer shall be deemed to have concealed his turnover or aggregate of purchase prices or to have furnished false particulars of his sales or purchases in his return or to have furnished a false return or returns for the purpose of Sub-section (1) unless he proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner or appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, that the concealment of the said turnover or the aggregate of purchase prices or furnishing of particulars of sales and purchases or furnishing of false return or returns was not due to any fraud or gross negligence on his part. In the case in hand, only justification for the non-payment of tax due was based on the decision of the Board of Revenue in Raj Constructions (supra), although the legal position with regard to payment of entry tax on works contract was quite clear in the light of decision of this Court in M/s N. M. Goel Rajnandgaon v. Sales 77a Officer, 1987 MPLJ (F.B.) 201 : 1987 CTJ 172 which was later on confirmed by the Supreme Court in (1989) 3 TLD 148. From the material on record, it is also clear that the Board of Revenue without taking note of decision of this Court and the Supreme Court in N. M. Goel's case, decided Raj Construction case in favour of the Assessee by the order dated 31-7-1991. Even otherwise also, the legal position was once again reiterated by this Court in Geo Miller and Co. New Delhi v. State of M. P. and others decided on September 18, 1996 and reported in (1996) 17 TLD 232 . Thus, at the time of filing of returns, there was no confusion with regard to legal position vis-a-vis tax liability under the Entry Tax Act, still the Petitioner neither filed revised returns nor deposited the differential amount of tax due on the taxable turnover. Reliance placed on the decisions reported in The Agricultural Implements Dealers Syndicate Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, and Dadabhoy's New Chirimiri Ponri Hill Colliery Company Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, , is like chasing a teasing illusion, in view of the decision ol the Supreme Court in M/s McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 230 therefore, these decisions in the light of facts of the present case, do not come to the rescue of the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever. From the facts, it is clear that Petitioner deliberately took a calculated chance and did not pay the full amount of tax on the taxable turnover, despite the legal position being quite clear and unambiguous in the light of decisions of this Court and Supreme Court. It is difficult to accede that Petitioner was acting bona fide and the breach on the part of the Petitioner was of technical in nature because Petitioner was relying upon the meaningless decision of the Board of Revenue. It is difficult to accede that Petitioner was acting bona fide and the breach on the part of the Petitioner was of technical in nature because Petitioner was relying upon the meaningless decision of the Board of Revenue. In all fiscal statutes, penalty provision are incorporated to prevent evasion of tax and unless there is something in the language of the taxing statute indicating the need to establish the element of mens-rea, it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. There is nothing in Section 69 which requires establishment of mens-rea before a penalty could be imposed under that provision. In a proceeding u/s 69. intention of the legislature is to emphasise the tact of loss of revenue and to provide remedy for such loss. In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution fails and accordingly it is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 2000/-. Order accordingly. Final Result : Dismissed