JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar :- The present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated May 22, 2003 for the assessment year 1987-88, by which the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the first appellate authority deleting the penalty levied under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act"). The brief facts of the case are that the assessee/opposite-party (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act for toilet soap, washing powder and confectionery and was entitled to purchase the aforesaid items against form C. During the year under consideration, the assessee had issued form C for the purchase of agarbatti, ayurvedic medicine, cosmetics, toilet goods and feeder, for which admittedly, the assessee was not registered. The assessing authority issued the notice under section 10A read with section 10(b) of the Central Act to show cause why penalty may not be levied for the issue of form C in respect of those goods which are not mentioned in the registration certificate. The assessing authority levied the penalty under section 10A of the Central Act at Rs. 53,405 on the ground that the form C has been misused and there was mens rea in issuing form C. Being aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. The order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Heard Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel and Sri K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. The learned standing counsel submitted that the assessee was not registered for agarbatti, ayurvedic medicine, cosmetics, toilet goods and feeder and knowing this fact had issued the form C to the seller while making the purchases by making a false representation. He submitted that it is a clear case where mens rea has been established on the part of the assessee in issuing the form C in respect of those goods for which the assessee was not registered. He submitted that both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are wrong in saying that the assessing authority had issued the form C in respect of the disputed goods. He submitted that both the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are wrong in saying that the assessing authority had issued the form C in respect of the disputed goods. An affidavit dated December 20, 2010 has been filed annexing the copy of the applications, by which the assessee requested for the issue of form C. In the applications, the goods for which the form C was sought has not been mentioned. He further submitted that the impugned goods, namely, agarbatti, ayurvedic medicine, cosmetics, toilet goods and feeder remotely do not fall within the purview of the items mentioned in the registration certificate and, therefore, it is not the case of bona fide belief on the part of the assessee, which led to the issue of form C in respect of the said goods. Sri K. Saxena, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that along with the applications for the issue of form C the details of the form C used earlier have been furnished. In the details, form C issued for the ayurvedic medicine have been furnished. These details were before the assessing authority at the time of issue of form C, but no objection had been raised at the time of issue of form C. This amount to bona fide belief on the part of the assessee in issuing form C in respect of the impugned goods. He submitted that on the facts and circumstances, there was no mens rea and, therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the assessee was registered for toilet soap, washing powder and confectionery under the Central Sales Tax Act during the year under consideration. The assessee was not registered for agarbatti, ayurvedic medicine, cosmetics, toilet goods and feeder. These goods remotely do not fall within the items mentioned in the registration certificate. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the assessee had issued form C under the bona fide belief while making the purchases of the said items that such goods fall under the items mentioned in the registration certificate. A perusal of the applications for the issue of form C, filed along with an affidavit dated December 20, 2010, made it clear that the form C has not been sought for the impugned goods. A perusal of the applications for the issue of form C, filed along with an affidavit dated December 20, 2010, made it clear that the form C has not been sought for the impugned goods. The furnishing of the details of the form C used earlier along with applications is wholly irrelevant. The assessing authority has recorded a categorical finding that in the present case, on the facts and circumstances, mens rea is established. In my view, there was no reason for the first appellate authority and the Tribunal to delete the penalty without setting aside the finding of the assessing authority that there was mens rea in misusing the from C. On the facts and circumstances, in my view, the assessee had issued form C in respect of the impugned goods making the false representation that it was registered for such goods. There was absolutely no bona fide belief on the part of the assessee in issuing the form C. In the present case, the mens rea on the part of the assessee in issuing form C is fully established. In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated May 22, 2003 and the order of the first appellate authority dated April 6, 1999 are set aside and the order of the assessing authority is restored.