JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. This revision emanates from proceedings taken against the revisionist under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The revisionist is stated to have purchased and imported an electrical generator under the cover of a Form-C. This was stated to attract the provisions of Section 10(b) of the 1956 Act namely the revisionist having falsely represented that the goods were covered by his certificate of registration. The assessee did not dispute that he had been granted registration under the 1956 Act for the purposes of manufacture of transformer and "all other electrical items". Upon a notice being issued as to why penalty be not levied, the explanation submitted by the revisionist was that he had proceeded to import the item in question proceeding on the assumption that the generator would stand covered under the entry of "all other electrical items". It was submitted that it was under a bona fide belief of the article being covered by the entry of electrical items that the Form C was utilized. It was contended 1956 Act therefore that the act was not tainted by any motive of making a false representation and evading tax. While the assessing authority proceeded to levy a penalty upon the assessee, the first appellate authority partly allowed the appeal and reduced the quantum of penalty imposed. The matter was taken by the assessee in appeal to the Tribunal which refused to interfere with the view taken by the first appellate authority. 3. Sri Manu Ghildyal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has rested his case on the submission that in order to fall within the mischief of sub clause (b) of Section 10, it was imperative for the respondent to come to a conclusion that a false representation has been made by the dealer. In amplification of the submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the distinction which a learned Judge of this Court noted between the expressions "wrong representation" and "false representation". He refers to the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow v. Project Technologist Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 48 VST 406 (All). 4. In amplification of the submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the distinction which a learned Judge of this Court noted between the expressions "wrong representation" and "false representation". He refers to the judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow v. Project Technologist Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 48 VST 406 (All). 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand has submitted that once the assessing authority had come to the conclusion that the article which stood imported namely, electrical generator, was liable to be treated as machinery and could not have possibly fallen within the expression of other electrical items, the false representation of the assessee was manifest. Consequently, he would submit that the assessing authority did not commit any error in imposing penalty upon the revisionist. 5. From a reading of the orders passed by the authorities as also the decision rendered by the Tribunal, this Court finds that consequent to the notice having been issued, it was the submission of the assessee that he had proceeded on the bona fide belief that the electrical generator would stand covered under the entry of other electrical items. It was submitted that this was a bona fide mistake with no intent to evade tax. The Court finds that the first appellate authority while dealing with the said submission has proceeded to hold that it was possible that the assessee did not deliberately issue Form-C for import of the generator and that the same could possibly be attributed to a mistaken opinion formed by it. It however recorded that since Form-C could not have been issued for the purposes of import of the generator, it was apparent that an attempt had been made to evade payment of tax. This view taken by the first appellate authority was affirmed by the Tribunal. 6. What this Court however finds is that both the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal have failed to consider the import of the expression "false representation". As was held by the learned Single Judge in Project Technologist a false representation necessarily entails and presupposes the assessee knowingly making a representation claiming the benefit of the article being covered by his certificate of registration even though he knew that the same could by no stretch of imagination fall within the four corners of the said certificate. As was held by the learned Single Judge in Project Technologist a false representation necessarily entails and presupposes the assessee knowingly making a representation claiming the benefit of the article being covered by his certificate of registration even though he knew that the same could by no stretch of imagination fall within the four corners of the said certificate. Once the first appellate authority came to a conclusion that it was possible to take the view that Form-C was erroneously issued and that the same could be characterised as a mistake, the charge of a "false representation" could not have been sustained. In the absence of the authorities having formed the opinion that the assessee had falsely represented the import to be one covered by his certificate of registration, the imposition of penalty is clearly rendered unsustainable. This Court even otherwise finds no material circumstance which would justify a conclusion that the assessee had made a false representation while importing the article in question. 7. Accordingly and in light of the above, this revision stands allowed. The order the Tribunal dated 23 September 2005 as also the order of the assessing authority dated 1 October 1999 and that of the first appellate authority dated 17 July 2000 are hereby set aside.