M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) This revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), is directed against an order dated July 21, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it dismissed the revisionist's Second Appeal No. 429 of 1988 for assessment year 1982-83 against the levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The revisionist is a manufacturer of shoes. During the year under consideration it imported goods worth Rs. 1,16,940 by rail and air without complying with the requirements of rule 87-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules requiring the furnishing of a declaration in form XXXI. The assessing officer issued a show cause notice and after hearing the revisionist levied a penalty of Rs. 20,000. This has been upheld by the first and the second appellate authority. The revisionist's contention throughout has been that the goods worth Rs. 1,61,940 imported by him are duly recorded in the books of account and there was no intention to evade sales tax and, therefore, no penalty should be levied on him. None of the authorities has accepted this as a reason for not levying penalty as in their opinion mens rea is not required to be established for levying penalty under section 15-A (1) (o ). Before me also the learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in this case the dealer had acted bona fide and the purchases in question represented only a part of the purchases made by the dealer all of which were duly accounted for in the books of account. According to him since there was no dishonest intention on the part of the assessee, no penalty should be levied. Reliance is placed on Garg Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1993 UPTC 79 and Wimco Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1993 UPTC 148, in both of which it was held that where the goods are imported without form XXXI for use as raw material, no penalty can be levied under section 15-A (1) (o ). Reliance was also placed on Bharat Ply-wood Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 79 STC 400 (All.); 1989 UPTC 1097 in which it was held that in the absence of dishonesty or contumaciousness on the part of the assessee a mere technical breach of the Rules cannot be punished under section 15-A (1) (o ). On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154 in which it was held that contravention of the provisions of section 28-A is enough for imposition of penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) and existence of mens rea was not necessary. In the present case as stated above, the dealer is a manufacturer of shoes and it seems that the goods in question were imported for being used as raw material. None of the authorities below has stated that if it had not been noticed that the goods were imported without complying with section 28-A and the rules framed thereunder any tax avoidance would have resulted. The Revenue after coming to know that the aforesaid import of goods was made without complying with rule 87-A does not seem to have made any investigation to find out whether there were any imports which were not accounted for in the books of account. The assessing officer has not even mentioned if in the past the assessee ever imported goods from outside the State by rail or air and whether it had complied with the requirements of the rules. In other words the Revenue has not made out any case that the conduct of the assessee in not complying with the requirements of rule 87-A in respect of the aforesaid purchases was, to use the words of the honourable Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211; [1972] 83 ITR 26, deliberately in defiance of law or the dealer was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of his obligation. In the case the honourable Supreme Court further observed that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose penalty will be justified in refusing to impose a penalty when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act. From the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned in the orders of the authorities below the revisionist's case seems to be merely of a technical breach and indications of a contumacious or dishonest conduct are completely absent. It was thus a case in which though a default punishable under section 15-A (1) (o) was established, there was no justification for the levy of penalty. The officers in the Revenue Department must remember that it is better to lose a little revenue than to lose the goodwill of the tax-payer. For the above reason, the revision petition is allowed and the penalty in question is quashed. Petition allowed. .;