JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 23/7/2015 passed in Revision Application No. 79 of 2010 and the order dated 17/12/2015 passed in Rectification Application No. 71 of 2015, by which the learned tribunal though confirmed the demand of tax and interest, however, has deleted the penalty levied under section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), the State has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2. That for the period of 2002-2003, the assessing authority raised demand of Rs. 4445/-. The revisional authority took the assessment order under suo-motu revision and raised demand to Rs. 73,12,095/- (including the tax liability, interest and penalty). 2.1. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional authority, the dealer preferred revision application before the learned tribunal. That by the impugned judgment and order dated 23/7/2015, the learned tribunal though confirmed the demand of tax and interest, however has deleted penalty imposed under section 45(6) of the Act mainly on the ground that the revisional authority has no jurisdiction to levy penalty for the first time. 2.2. That thereafter the State preferred Rectification Application No. 17 of 2015, which came to be rejected by the learned tribunal. The dealer also preferred rectification application reducing to reduce the interest charged under section 47(4A) of the Act and restricting for the period of 36 months only and the same came to be allowed and the interest under section 47(4A) was restricted to 36 months only. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal in deleting penalty imposed/levied under section 45(6) of the Act, the State has preferred the present Special Civil Application. The State has also challenged the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal restricting interest charged under section 47(4A) of the Act for the period of 36 months only. 3. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent dealer. Under the circumstances, present petition is heard ex-parte so far as the respondent dealer is concerned. 4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State. 4.1. Mr. 3. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent dealer. Under the circumstances, present petition is heard ex-parte so far as the respondent dealer is concerned. 4. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the State. 4.1. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the issue whether the revisional authority can levy penalty under section 45(6) of the Act is now not res-integra in view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. Versus State of Gujarat, in Tax Appeal No. 1908 of 2009. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Division Bench of this court has specifically observed and held that the penalty under section 45(6) of the Act is mandatory and therefore, the revisional authority can impose penalty for the first time in the revisional proceedings. 4.2. Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in reducing the interest charged under section 47(4A) of the Act for the period of 36 months only. 5. Heard Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner -State. 5.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the learned tribunal has deleted penalty levied under section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, which was levied by the revisional authority in suo-motu revision proceedings against the assessment order. It is required to be noted that the revisional authority as well as the learned tribunal has confirmed the tax liability on the ground that "C" Form furnished by the dealer was not genuine. The demand of tax has been confirmed by the learned tribunal. However, the learned tribunal has deleted the penalty levied under section 45(6) of the Act solely on the ground that the revisional authority for the first time and in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot levy penalty under section 45(6) of the Act. The aforesaid is now not res-integra in view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. (supra). The aforesaid is now not res-integra in view of decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. (supra). In the aforesaid decision the Division Bench of this court has held that the penalty under section 45(6) of the Act is mandatory and therefore, the same can be levied by the revisional authority for the first time in the suo-motu revisional proceedings. Under the circumstances and in view of the direct decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ridhhi Siddhi Gluco Biols Ltd. (supra), the impugned order passed by the learned tribunal deleting penalty under section 45(6) of the Act cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.2. Now, so far as the order passed by the learned tribunal restricting interest charged under section 47(4A) of the Act for the period of 36 months only is concerned, considering sub-clause (vi) of section 47(4A) of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in restricting interest charged under section 47(4) of the Act for the period of 36 months only. Under the circumstances, challenge to the aforesaid fails. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned tribunal dated 23/7/2015 in Revision Application No. 79 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside in so far as deleting penalty levied under section 45(6) of the Act is concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. /Department