JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. Both the above revisions relate to the same assessee and similar controversy are involved therefore are being disposed of by a common judgment. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1981-82 in Sales Tax Revision No. 173 of 1992 and assessment year 1982-83 in Trade Tax Revision No. 1099 of 1994.
2. The applicant is a registered dealer of kirana and dry fruits, etc., both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The dispute relates in these revisions with regard to the levy of penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act for wrongly issuing form C in respect of purchases of garigola from outside State of U.P. Both in these assessment years the levy of penalty has been confirmed up to the stage of Tribunal under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal on the basis of third quarterly return of turnover for the assessment year 1981-82 has come to the conclusion that the tax was deposited on garigola at the rate of four per cent and the tax was realised at the same rate from the purchasers. The Tribunal has held that it is established beyond doubt that the dealer came to know at the time of the filing of the return that garigola is a different commodity than dry fruits. The tax was deposited on garigola treating it to be a different commodity than kirana and dry fruits. The dealer was not authorised to issue form C for goods purchased from State outside U.P. other than on kirana and dry fruits.
3. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. A copy of the registration certificate granted under the Central Sales Tax Act has been filed as annexure No. 1 to the revision. The dealer has been authorised under Section 8(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act to make the purchases for resale in respect of commodities, spices, dry fruits and condiments including supari, etc. The dealer has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court given in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal [2001] 122 STC 567 : [2001] UPTC 173. Further reliance has been placed upon Sanjiv Fabrics v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [2004] 137 STC 563 (All) : [2003] UPTC 1081, and contended that false representation under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act means a deliberate representation by the dealer and it does not include wrong representation. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the present case the finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the dealer himself treated garigola differently than kirana and dry fruits.
4. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal [2001] 122 STC 567 : [2001] UPTC 173, has confirmed the order deleting the penalty on the finding that the assessee had been importing garigola under the bona fide belief that it is an item of kirana even though it is liable to be taxed as oil seed being declared goods. In that case it has been observed that the word kirana is a wide word and includes several items. Normally the garigola has not been treated as oil-seed by the consumer but as an item of kirana.
5. In view of the above I am of the view that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act and it cannot be said that the dealer has made false representation under Section 10(b) of the Act while making the purchases of garigola against form C. In the result both the revisions are allowed. The orders of penalty are set aside.