JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA J. - Raising a short controversy, the present revision has been filed challenging the orders passed by the authorities below including the Tribunal asking the dealer - applicant to pay the differential amount of tax due to wrong issuance of form under section 3B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The dealer - applicant is a recognition certificate holder and it purchased refined furnace oil (R.F.O.) from Indian Oil Corporation. Although the dealer was entitled for concessional rate of tax in respect of purchase of R.F.O., it is not in dispute that it issued the form claiming total exemption from payment of tax. It is also not in dispute that the dealer - applicant purchased R.F.O. without paying any tax on such transactions. A notice under section 3B of the Act was issued by the Department on the ground that up to the month of October 1991 it purchased R.F.O. to the tune of Rs. 18,75,851.69 by issuing such form IIIB claiming total exemption. In reply to the show-cause notice issued by the assessing authority, the applicant came out with the case that although it was entitled for partial exemption from payment of tax on such purchases but due to mistake of its employees the forms claiming total exemption were sent to the Indian Oil Corporation. The assessing authority examined the account books of the applicant and also the forms which were issued by it to the Indian Oil Corporation. In respect of purchase of refined furnace oil, it was found that the applicant was not authorised to issue form IIIB claiming total exemption and as such, it has made purchases worth Rs. 18,75,851.69 without payment of any tax. The said commodity was taxable at the concessional rate of five per cent at the hands of the applicant which comes to Rs. 93,792.58. The order for recovery of the said amount was passed accordingly. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the first appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that wrong form claiming total exemption was issued by mistake of its employees. 93,792.58. The order for recovery of the said amount was passed accordingly. The said order was challenged unsuccessfully before the first appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that wrong form claiming total exemption was issued by mistake of its employees. Further submission is that unless a finding is recorded that by issuance of such forms, the tax leviable under the U.P. Trade Tax Act on such transactions ceases to be leviable or leviable at concessional rate, no liability can be fastened on the dealer - applicant. Further reference was made to the prescribed form of form IIIB as prescribed under the Rules and it was submitted that there is no column in the said form to disclose as to whether the transaction covered by the said form is totally exempt or partially exempt from payment of tax. Reliance was placed on certain decisions of this court. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the applicant - dealer was a "recognition certificate holder" and was entitled to purchase refined furnace oil on payment of concessional rate of tax. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has issued form IIIB against the purchases made by it to the Indian Oil Corporation mentioning that it is entitled to total exemption of tax. Obviously, the dealer - applicant wrongly mentioned in forms IIIB that its purchases are totally exempt from tax. It may be noted that the matter was heard by this court earlier and the following order was passed on January 7, 2008 : "Heard Sri Pawan Shree Agarwal, learned Counsel for the dealer - applicant and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel. The only issue which survives in this revision is as to whether the assessing authority of the Indian Oil Corporation from whom the present dealer had made the purchases against form IIIB (claiming total exemption of tax when it was entitled to only partial exemption) has been charged to tax on such sale made to the present dealer. The only issue which survives in this revision is as to whether the assessing authority of the Indian Oil Corporation from whom the present dealer had made the purchases against form IIIB (claiming total exemption of tax when it was entitled to only partial exemption) has been charged to tax on such sale made to the present dealer. In case the Indian Oil Corporation has paid the tax on the sale made to the present dealer, the proceedings under section 3B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, against the present dealer may not be held to be maintainable. Sri Pawan Shree Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant - dealer, prays for and is allowed a month's time to place before this court the material on the basis of which it claims that Indian Oil Corporation has paid the tax against the sale made to the dealer against the disputed form IIIB." The matter was taken up today. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is not in a position to place before this court any material on the basis of which it claims that Indian Oil Corporation has paid the tax on the transactions covered by the said form IIIB. Besides the above, on the facts of the present case, section 3B of the Act is fully attracted even on the admitted facts. The applicant has at least wrongly issued form IIIB to the Indian Oil Corporation in respect of the purchases of refined furnace oil and represented to it that it is entitled to purchase refined furnace oil and such purchases are exempt. This being the admitted position, whether Indian Oil Corporation has paid the tax or not is wholly irrelevant. Even otherwise, under section 3B of the Act the applicant's liability to pay the difference in the tax by way of penalty, is very much there. It cannot avoid its liability for its own wrong. This being the admitted position, whether Indian Oil Corporation has paid the tax or not is wholly irrelevant. Even otherwise, under section 3B of the Act the applicant's liability to pay the difference in the tax by way of penalty, is very much there. It cannot avoid its liability for its own wrong. So far as the argument that there is no column in form IIIB to state as to whether the purchasing dealer is entitled to purchase the raw material at concessional rate of tax or whether such purchase is exempt, is concerned, it will not make any difference on the facts of the present case inasmuch as it is admitted by the dealer - applicant in reply to the show-cause notice that in form IIIB issued by it, it is mentioned that such purchases are totally exempt from payment of tax. The applicant is bound by its own representation and admission. Had there been no such writing on the said form IIIB by the applicant, there might have been an occasion for the selling dealer to ask the applicant, the purchasing dealer, to send a copy of the recognition certificate in support of the claim as to whether the purchasing dealer (applicant) is entitled to purchase the goods at concessional rate of tax or whether such purchases are totally exempt. Then, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the following cases : 1. Jain Engineering and Moulding Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1997] STD (HC) 9; [1996] 9 NTN 298. 2. Willard India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] UPTC 1117; [1999] 15 NTN 752. 3. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC). 4. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Roop Chand Sumer Chand [1995] UPTC 721. 5. Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Jagdish Rai Shyam Mohan [2001] UPTC 307. None of the aforesaid decisions are applicable to the facts of the present case. They are distinguishable as they were decided on different factual set up. In Jain Engineering and Moulding Works [1997] STD (HC) 9; [1996] 9 NTN 298, the court noticed that form does not require the purchasing dealer to state whether recognition certificate entitles him to full exemption or to partial exemption. They are distinguishable as they were decided on different factual set up. In Jain Engineering and Moulding Works [1997] STD (HC) 9; [1996] 9 NTN 298, the court noticed that form does not require the purchasing dealer to state whether recognition certificate entitles him to full exemption or to partial exemption. In that case it was found as a fact that the dealer had correctly filed the required details, which is not so in the present case. In the present case, as stated above, the dealer had mentioned that he is entitled to full exemption, which is not correct. In the case of Willard India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [1999] UPTC 1117; [1999] 15 NTN 752, there was a mistake in the recognition certificate and the dealer having acted on that basis it was held that levy of any amount under section 3B of the Act was not justified as the declaration was neither "false" nor "wrong". On the facts, the case is distinguishable as in the present case there is no mistake in the recognition certificate issued to the present dealer. The other decisions, referred to above, by the learned counsel for the applicant were rendered in a totally different factual background and they have no application to the controversy involved in the present case, even remotely. In Jagdish Rai Shyam Mohan [2001] UPTC 307, the court took the view that as there was no necessity to issue forms and no tax ceased to be leviable on account of issue of forms it was held that provisions of section 3B of the Act are not applicable. Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Roop Chand Sumer Chand [1995] UPTC 721 it was held that the words "ceases to be leviable" means ceases to be leviable in law and not ceases to be leviable because of a wrong judgment. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bakhtawar Lal Kailash Chand Arhti [1992] 87 STC 196 (SC); it was held that section 3B does not apply where the tax payable under Central enactment is evaded. Viewed as above, I find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal confirming the order passed under section 3B of the Act. There is no merit in the revision. The revision is dismissed, but no order as to costs.