VENKATASWAMI, J. - (1.) THIS tax revision is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 237/80 dated September 12, 1980.
(2.) THE Tribunal by the order under revision has set aside the penalty levied against the respondent for violation of section10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The brief facts are the following : The respondent has obtained a certificate in form "C" which included items for use in the manufacture, i.e., (1) tarpaulin, tins, aprons, canvas, rexin, wax, chemicals, thread, brass eyelet, iron pegs, wooden pegs, dari and salita. On the basis of this certificate, the assessee seems to have purchased the following items, namely, hospital sheetings, aluminium buckets, P.V.C. sheetings, tarpaulin and buckets. The assessing officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were of the view that the items purchased by the respondent/assessee will not fall under the items mentioned in the registration certificate issued to the respondent and therefore, there was violation of section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Appellate Tribunal has found as follows : . 'The ingredient of the offence under section 10(b) is false representation. Therefore even though there may be an ultimate finding that the goods are not covered by the certificate of registration no offence under section 10(b) would be made out, if there is no false representation. To bring home the offence under section 10(b), guilty animus or mens rea is essential. In the absence of mens rea, no penalty can be imposed under section 10-A.'" The learned Additional Government Pleader contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is far-fetched and cannot be sustained. On a perusal of the items included in the certificate and the items purchased as set out abovewe are not in a position to hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is any way arbitrary or totally unrelated to the items mentioned in the certificate. The reasons given by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion are also well-founded. Accordingly, we do not think that there is any case for interference. Accordingly, this tax case is dismissed. No costs. ;