JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. Heard Sri Mudit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of aforesaid revisions the revisionists have assailed the order of Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench 2, Lucknow dated 31.01.2002 whereby the order of the First Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner Appeal) Trade Tax dated 21.09.1996 has been upheld. 3. In these revisions following questions of law are involved : "(i) Whether in view of the fact that along with the application a list has also been filed in which electrical goods and machineries were mentioned. Trade Tax Officer while disposing of the registration application has signed the list. With the intent to make list as a part of the registration certificate. As per manual the list is the part of the registration certificate, and therefore, it can not be said that the applicant was not registered for electrical goods and machineries. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty? (iii) Whether penalty is based on relevant material and legally justified? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant has able to make out a case of a bonafide belief and reasonable cause? (v) Whether in view of the fact that there was no mens-era or willful intention to commit any default and inasmuch as applicant has made out the case of bonafide, Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty? (vi) Whether the amount of penalty is legally justified and based on material?" 4. Since in the all the aforesaid revisions have been preferred against common impugned order and involve common questions of law, they are being considered and decided together by means of this order. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he had applied for Central Sales Tax Registration in Form-A, by means of an application dated 08.01.1982 and in the application form, he had mentioned the goods, for which he was seeking registration, were:- (i) Diesel Generating Sets. (ii) Control Panel. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that the list of goods was annexed by means of separate list. The registration was granted to the revisionist on 15.02.1982 for two items namely, diesel generating sets and control panel. (ii) Control Panel. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further stated that the list of goods was annexed by means of separate list. The registration was granted to the revisionist on 15.02.1982 for two items namely, diesel generating sets and control panel. The revisionist, on the basis of the said registration, continued his business till he was given a notice of penalty for issuing Form C in respect of items, which were not covered by the registration under the Central Sales Tax. The revisionist has further drawn the attention of this Court to an order dated 29.05.1991 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Executive) Sales Tax, Lucknow, wherein, he has stated that after perusal of his application form and calling for report from the Trade Tax Officer, he has held that there was a list annexed to the application Form A, submitted by the revisionist for registration under the Central Sales Tax but it seems that registration has been granted only in respect of two items mentioned by him in the Form. It has been noticed in the said order that the registration in respect of the said goods contained in the list have not been rejected. He is further of the opinion that probably the said list was not brought to the knowledge of the authority concerned and therefore, no decision could be taken in respect of the said list. 7. Subsequently, by means of the order dated 05.02.1996 passed by Assessment Commissioner (Assessment), Sales/Trade Tax, Lucknow has imposed the penalty upon the revisionist and he has held that the revisionist has deliberately issued Form C without obtaining proper registration under the Central Sales Tax. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that he issued Form C under the Central Sales Tax in the bona fide manner under the belief that he had duly disclosed the items for which he was likely to trade in and he was not aware that the registration was granted only on two items rather than the entire list. 9. The question which arises for determination by this Court is as to whether the issue of Form C under the Central Sales Tax by the revisionist was under the bona fide belief or deliberately issued to evade tax. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. 9. The question which arises for determination by this Court is as to whether the issue of Form C under the Central Sales Tax by the revisionist was under the bona fide belief or deliberately issued to evade tax. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the revisionist had made an application under Form A of the Central Sales Tax and in the Form, he had disclosed only two items namely, diesel generating sets and control panel. In the said Form, he had also enclosed the list of items for which he was likely to trade in and for which, he would be issuing Form C under the Central Sales Tax. However, the order dated 29.06.1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) Trade Tax, which has been passed after perusal of the record and also after calling for a report from the Assessing Authority, discloses the fact that the revisionist had in fact enclosed the list of items for which he was likely to trade in and for which he was thereby authorized to issue Form C. The revisionist under the mistaken belief submitted that the registration has been granted even for the items for which he had disclosed in the list, continued to issue Form C. The order dated 29.05.1991 further states that in case registration has not been granted with respect to the items contained in the list and the competent authority should proceed to take a decision after giving an opportunity to the revisionist. Admittedly the competent authority has not rejected the list contained with the application. 12. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that he was never afforded any opportunity and no proceedings were commenced subsequent to passing of the said order, with regard to the rejection of the list. 13. From the entire material as stated hereinabove, it is clear that the revisionist had in fact submitted a list of items, which was contained in the Form A. The registration was granted only with respect of two items and not for all the items as mentioned in the list. 13. From the entire material as stated hereinabove, it is clear that the revisionist had in fact submitted a list of items, which was contained in the Form A. The registration was granted only with respect of two items and not for all the items as mentioned in the list. The revisionist was never given an opportunity nor any proceedings undertaken with respect of two items contained in the list in pursuance to order dated 29.06.1991 and from the conjoined reading of the entire facts as mentioned above, it cannot be said that there was a deliberate intention on the part of the revisionist to evade tax. The finding of the Tribunal is that the revisionist did not act in a bona fide manner seems to be perverse as there is no material to show that there was intention to evade tax by the revisionist. 14. It is settled proposition of law that there has to be a mala fide intention, which is a necessary ingredient, which has to be determined before imposing penalty in tax matters. 15. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. M/s Sanjiv Fabrics, (2010) LawSuit(SC) 614 and other connected matters the Apex Court held as under : "17. To put it succinctly, in examining whether mens rea is an essential element of an offence created under a taxing statute, regard must be had to the following factors: (i) the object and scheme of the statute; (ii) the language of the section and; (iii) the nature of penalty. 18. It is true that the object of Section 10(b) of the Act is to prevent any misuse of the registration certificate but the legislature has, in the said Section, used the expression "falsely represents" in contradistinction to "wrongly represents". Therefore, what we are required to construe is whether the words "falsely represents" would cover a mere incorrect representation or would embrace only such representations which are knowingly, wilfully and intentionally false. 19. According to the Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition), the work "false" has two distinct and well-recognized meanings: (1) intentionally or knowingly or negligently untrue; (2) untrue by mistake or accident, or honestly after the exercise of reasonable care. 19. According to the Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition), the work "false" has two distinct and well-recognized meanings: (1) intentionally or knowingly or negligently untrue; (2) untrue by mistake or accident, or honestly after the exercise of reasonable care. A thing is called "false" when it is done, or made, with knowledge, actual or constructive, that it is untrue or illegal, or is said to be done falsely when the meaning is that the party is in fault for its error. 20. Likewise, P. Ramanatha Aiyar in Advance Law Lexicon (3rd Edition, 2005) explains the word "false" as : "In the more important uses in jurisprudence the word implies something more than a mere untruth; it is an untruth coupled with a lying intent....... or an intent to deceive or to perpetrate some treachery or fraud. The true meaning of the term must, as in other instances, often be determined by the context." 16. In Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 2534 of 2005 - Kailash Electric Stores Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow (decided on 08.07.2016), this Court held as under : "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. 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 characterized 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." 17. 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." 17. In the present case, it is the revisionist who claims to have submitted a list of goods along with Form A. The Deputy Commissioner (Excise/Sales Tax), Lucknow by means of order dated 29.05.1991, has affirmed that such a list was indeed annexed along with the application submitted by the revisionist and he has further observed that the registration under Form B should have been granted with regard to the items mentioned in the said list and in case, same was to be rejected, then according to the Rule, the revisionist ought to have been heard. 18. It is further clear from the above, that the revisionist intended to trade in the goods and has annexed a list along with the application form which was never considered by the respondents and it is admitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to him nor was there any order of rejection with regard to the goods mentioned in the list. He has also furnished a complete list of goods imported and the form issued for electrical goods and machinery before assessing authority at the time of moving application for furnishing Form-C, which also indicates the bonafide of the revisionist. It appears that the revisionist was under a mistaken belief that registration has been granted for all the goods. 19. In the light of the above, it is clear that there is no lack of bona fide on the part of the revisionist, who has voluntarily submitted the list of goods but the same was not duly considered by the respondents. Malafide/malice is a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty. Therefore in this view of the matter, it cannot be concluded that there was mala-fide/malice which can be attributed to the revisionist for imposition of penalty. 20. In the light of the above, the revisions are allowed. 21. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The questions of law are answered accordingly.