JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J.
1. These three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 23.11.1991 for the assessment year 1982-83 (Central), order dated 23.11.1991 for the assessment year 1983-84 (Central) and order dated 28.04.1993 for the assessment year 1981-82 (Central) respectively, Common questions are being involved, hence the same are being disposed of by the common order.
2. Applicant was registered under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax since 1962. At the instance of the applicant, amendment was made in the registration certificate and the desired items are added time to time. It appears that after 1962, 33 items were added on 27.12.1967 w.e.f. 11.12.1967. Thereafter, on 06.10.1979, 45 items were added w.e.f. 15.05.1979. Thereafter, further additions were made time to time. Photocopy of the registration certificate is enclosed as annexure-1 to the revision petition.
3. In the year 1981-82, it was found that the applicant had purchased building material for Rs. 4,90,693.71p., iron steel, specification sheet, joining sheet for Rs. 2,77,478.59p. and asbestos sheet, waste cotton for Rs. 26,956.53p. from outside the State of U.P. and issued Form-C for such things. Aforesaid items were not mentioned in the registration certificate and the applicant was not eligible to issue Form-C in respect of those items. The assessing authority initiated the proceeding under Section 10A of the Act and on the consideration of the reply filed by the applicant sum of Rs. 95,000/-was levied towards penalty. First appeal filed by the applicant was allowed in part and the amount of penalty was reduced to Rs. 88,500/-. Applicant filed second appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed.
4. For the assessment year 1982-83 applicant had purchased material for Rs. 4,60,470/-, Iron sheet for Rs. 3,66,850.10, stationary chart cotton, sanitary fitting for Rs. 83,283.81p. For the assessment year 1983-84 applicant had purchased Iron sheet for Rs. 3,11,132.40p. and stationery chart and blower for Rs. 32,021.30p. Assessing authority levied penalty at Rs. 1,10,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively in both the year on the ground that the aforesaid items were not mentioned in the registration certificate and hence Form-C issued in respect of the aforesaid goods was in violation of Section 10(b) of the Act. First appeal filed by the applicant was rejected. Tribunal has also rejected both the second appeals.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the list of the various items were illustrative and not exhaustive and, therefore, even if purchased items were mentioned in the list of the items, which is part of the registration certificate but the said items should be treated to have been included in the registration certification. He submitted that under the bonafide belief that the list of the items annexed to the registration certificate was only illustrative and not exhaustive applicant issued Form-C and, therefore, penalty could be levied. In support of his arguments he relied upon the decision in the case of P.K. Varghese and Sons v. Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam, reported in 16 STC, 323, in the case of CST, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Bombay Garage reported in 57 STC, 67 and in the case of and in the case of Sanjiv Fabrics, Baraut, Meerut v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, report in 2003 UPTC., 1081.
7. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the purchased items were not mentioned in the list annexed to the registration certificate in respect of which registration was granted. Therefore, by issuing Form-C applicant had made a false representation that it was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, though they were aware that those items were not mentioned in registration certificate. He submitted that it is wrong to say that the list was only illustrative and not exhaustive. He submitted that at the most illustrative list can be said to be only in respect of spare parts and not in respect of all items. He submitted that the claim of the applicant of bonafide belief is baseless. He submitted that if the applicant was under the bonafide belief that the list was only illustrative and not exhaustive, there was no reason to seek further addition of various items in the list in the year 1967 and in the year 1979 and again time to time.
8. I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below:
9. In my opinion, there is no force in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant. Admittedly, disputed items were not mentioned in the list of the items annexed alongwith registration certificate. Claim of the applicant that the list was only illustrative and not exhaustive and under the bonafide belief Form-C was issued in respect of the disputed items can not be accepted. Perusal of registration certificate shows that illustrative list was only in respect of machinery and plant, machinery and its equipment, tools, hardware, pipes and fittings, electrical stores and equipments. In the list enclosed following is mentioned.
Manufacture Machinery & plant, machinery and its equipment, tools, hardware materials, pipes and fittings, electrical stores and equipments.
Note: An illustrative list of various items that will be used is attached as Annexure A. It cannot naturally be exhaustive or exclusive but is only illustrative."
10. Applicant itself has not treated the list as illustrative, in as much as in the year 1967 he moved an application for the addition of 33 items, which was added vide order dated 27.12.1967 w.e.f. 11.12.1967 and for the addition of 45 items in the year 1979 vide order 06.10.1979 w.e.f. 15.05.1979. If the applicant could move an application for the addition of 33 items in the year 1967 and 45 items in the year 1979, there is no reason for not moving the application for the addition of disputed items in the list in the year 1981, when the applicant made purchases from outside the State of U.P. and intended to issue Form-C for such purchases. This clearly proves that even after having knowledge that it was not registered for the disputed items, Form-C were issued, therefore, penalty has rightly been levied. There is no reason to interfere. In the case of P.K. Varghese and Sons v. Sales Tax Officers, Special Circle, Ernakulam, reported in 16 STC, 323, learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act it must be proved that the dealer made the representation that the goods purchased were covered by the registration certificate with knowledge that they were not so covered. This case does not apply to the present case as in the present case it was found that the dealer had made representation while making the purchases that it was registered knowingly that it was not registered. In the case of CST, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. Bombay Garage reported in 57 STC, 67, dealer had issued Form-C for the purchase of air-cooler under the bonafide belief that it was covered under the electronic motors, refrigeration and allied machines. Tribunal recorded the finding that the dealer had issued Form-C under the bonafide belief Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the view of the Tribunal.
11. In the case of Sanjiv Fabrics, Baraut, Meerut v. CST, reported in 2003 UPTC, 1081. Dealer was registered for "cotton" while Form-C was issued for cotton waste under the bonafide belief. In the present case, as stated above, there was no case of bonafide belief and dealer issued Form-C in respect of items knowingly that it was not registered.
12. For the reasons stated above, revisions have no merit.
13. In the result, all the three revisions fails and are dismissed.