JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri. Murari Mohan Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri. Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. 2. By means of aforesaid revisions challenge has been made to common judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal in Second Appeal No. 43 of 2006 and Second Appeal No. 44 of 2006, whereby the appeals preferred by the revisionist were rejected. These revisions relate to assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that assessee/revisionist is a firm engaged in the business of buying and selling "Vanaspati, other edible oils, sugar etc." The revisionist firm is registered under Section 8-A of U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The revisionist established a Cold Storage under the name and style of Shreenathji Cold Storage, Wazirganj, Budaun as a branch of the head office at Allahabad and accordingly moved an application for the amendment of the registration certificates under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. 4. The assessing authority by order dated 09.01.2002, amended the registration certificate in Form-15, issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act as also registration Certificate in Form-B issued under the Central Sales Tax Act showing the business of the revisionist at Budaun as a Branch Office, but no addition/amendment with regard to the items required to be imported by the revisionist was made in the registration certificate and for the that purpose revisionist moved another application for addition of items in Form-C before the Assessing Authority. 5. In the meanwhile, the revisionist started importing machinery and parts. During the course of assessment proceedings for the year 2001-02, it came to be notice of the Assessing Officer that the items imported by the assessee-revisionist, did not find mention in the registration certificate and therefore issued a show cause notice to the revisionist stating that he had imported machinery and parts amounting to Rs. 9,26,236/- in respect of which permission not having been granted, and held that the revisionist had imported the items in question unauthorizedly and illegally. 6. 9,26,236/- in respect of which permission not having been granted, and held that the revisionist had imported the items in question unauthorizedly and illegally. 6. In response to the show-cause-notice, the revisionist filed a detailed reply stating that his application for addition of machines and parts thereof was still pending and in any case the same had not been rejected by the Assessing Authority and nor any communication in this regard was made to the revisionist, thus, the applicant was under the bona-fide belief that the applicant was authorized to import the goods in question against Form-C and therefore no violation of any provision has been made by him for which he can be penalized under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. 7. The Assessing Authority however did not accepted the explanation of the revisionist and imposed penalty in exercise of powers under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, holding that the revisionist had imported machines and parts thereof on Form-C without having been duly authorized in this regard and imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000.00 under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act by order dated 22.02.2005. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of penalty, the revisionist preferred appeals before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Trade Tax, Allahabad, which were dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.01.2006, mainly on the ground that in the certificate of registration only branch has been added and not the items. Against the order passed by the first appellate authority, the revisionist preferred Second Appeals before the Trade Tax Tribunal, Allahabad, which has also been dismissed by means of impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2006. Hence present revisions. 9. Following substantial questions of law have been framed in these revisions for consideration: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant was liable for penalty U/s 10-A read with Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the quantum of penalty fixed by the authorities below was excessive and arbitrary? 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has made an application for addition of items in the certificate of registration, but the competent authority had only added the Branch, while the application regarding addition of items remained pending. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he has made an application for addition of items in the certificate of registration, but the competent authority had only added the Branch, while the application regarding addition of items remained pending. He further submitted that he had issued form-C and only thereupon imported the goods and considering the aforesaid facts it can safely presumed that the revisionist was acting bonafidely and he had no intention to evade tax and therefore the orders passed by the Assessing Authority, the first Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal were arbitrary and have not considered the case of the revisionist in proper perspective and therefore the penalty imposed upon him is liable to be set aside. 11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Revenue on the other hand has submitted that under the scheme of the Central Sales Tax Act it is mandatory that certificate of registration should assign list of items which are purported to be dealt by the assessee. He further submitted that the application in this regard was preferred by the revisionist but no orders in this regard have been passed in favour of the revisionist and therefore in absence of the addition of items in the registration certificate the revisionist could not have imported the goods on Form-C which are not included in the certificate of registration. He further submits that the penalty imposed upon the revisionist was just and proper and that there is clear violation of statutory provisions under the scheme of the Act. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. The admitted facts of this case are that the revisionist had moved an application for adding of Branch of his firm and also for addition of items. The competent authority had only added the Branch but no order was passed with regard to addition of the items. It is true that Form-C was issued in respect to the items to be imported, which did not find mention in the certificate of registration and the revisionist is claiming that the said goods were imported under the bona-fide belief that the goods have been included in the amended certificate of registration. 14. It is also uncontroverted that application regarding addition of items was not allowed nor were the items entered on the certificate of registration. 14. It is also uncontroverted that application regarding addition of items was not allowed nor were the items entered on the certificate of registration. Without addition of items in the registration certificate, it is not permissible for the revisionist to import the goods and in case such goods which are not included in the certificate of registration are imported, same would amount to penalty under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. 15. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. M/s Sanjiv Fabrics, 2010 (44) NTN 69, to canvass his submissions. In paragraph 22 of the said judgment, the Court has held as under: “22. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the use of the expression "falsely represents" is indicative of the fact that the offence under Section 10(b) of the Act comes into existence only where a dealer acts deliberately in defiance of law or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct. Therefore, in proceedings for levy of penalty under Section 10A of the Act, burden would be on the revenue to prove the existence of circumstances constituting the said offence. Furthermore, it is evident from the heading of Section 10-A of the Act that for breach of any provision of the Act, constituting an offence under Section 10 of the Act, ordinary remedy is prosecution which may entail a sentence of imprisonment and the penalty under Section 1-0A of the Act is only in lieu of prosecution. In light of the language employed in the Section and the nature of penalty contemplated therein, we find it difficult to held that all types of omissions or commissions in the use of Form-C will be embraced in the expression "false representation." In our opinion, therefore, a finding of mens rea is a condition precedent for levying penalty under Section 10(b) read with Section 10-A of the Act. 23. That takes us to the next question viz. Whether on the facts of the two cases before us it could be said that the dealers had purchased the goods in question and furnished Form-C in respect of those goods knowing that the said goods were not covered by their certificates of registration and, therefore, the requirement of the mens rea was satisfied. 24. Whether on the facts of the two cases before us it could be said that the dealers had purchased the goods in question and furnished Form-C in respect of those goods knowing that the said goods were not covered by their certificates of registration and, therefore, the requirement of the mens rea was satisfied. 24. As regards, the first set of appeals, as afore-stated, the High Court has deleted the penalty on the ground that apart from the fact that on earlier occasions the department had not raised any objection while issuing Form-C to the dealer, the dealer filed an application for amendment of the registration certificate as soon as he learnt about his fault. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the High Court had lost sight of the fact that the dealer had used Form-C to import items like sutli, tat etc. in addition to the cotton waste. Assuming that the dealer was of the bona fide belief that cotton included the cotton waste, it is hard to believe that there was some confusion in the mind of the dealer in so far as other items were concerned. Similarly, in the second set of appeals, it is evident from the impugned judgment that the High Court has not examined the explanation furnished by the dealer that they were under a bona fide belief that they were authorized to purchase oil seeds against Form-C issued to them regularly by the department without any objection. It is manifest that the High Court proceeded to examine the case of the dealer on the premise that offence under Section 10(b) of the Act was an absolute offence.” 16. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that the assessee therein was able to demonstrate before the Court that he had imported the goods bonafidely and did not file any false returns, his intentions were further demonstrated by the fact that on coming to know that the items are not included in the registration certificate, he had immediately moved an application for amendment of the registration certificate to include the items. 17. In the instant case, the assessee despite coming to know that the goods/items have not been included in the list, he did not moved any application for disposal of pending application or moved a fresh application for including the goods in the certificate of registration. 18. 17. In the instant case, the assessee despite coming to know that the goods/items have not been included in the list, he did not moved any application for disposal of pending application or moved a fresh application for including the goods in the certificate of registration. 18. The bona-fides of the revisionist are also not made out in the instant case, inasmuch as, the certificate of registration after due amendment would have been returned to him alongwith endorsement of the authority concerned. On the strength of the aforesaid certificate of registration, the revisionist continued his business of importing the goods, therefore, the revisionist cannot plead ignorance of the certificate of registration wherein the list of goods is also mentioned. 19. The revisionist in the present case was fully aware of the amendments incorporated in his certificate of registration and from the list of items appended therein, he should have been aware of the fact that his application for addition of goods had not been allowed and this the items had not been included in the list of goods he intends to import on Form-C. 20. In the light of the above, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Sanjiv Fabrics (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the instant case, the revisionist had full knowledge about the fate of his applications for addition of branch as well as items. He had commenced his business at the new branch which was added in the amended certificate of registration. Despite the fact that his application for addition of items was not allowed, he continued to import the said goods under Form-C and therefore from the above facts it cannot be deciphered that the revisionist has acted in bona-fide manner in importing the said goods. 21. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and therefore no interference in the same is required. 22. The revisions are dismissed. 23. The substantial questions of law raised in these revisions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the revisionist.