M. C. AGARWAL, J. - (1.) These two revisions under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the U. P. Act"), arise out of a consolidated order dated February 27, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, whereby it dismissed the dealer's appeal against the levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (c) of the U. P. Act and allowed the Commissioner's appeal against an order dated September 1, 1983 under section 22 of the U. P. Act passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), whereby he allowed an application under section 22 moved by the assessee and thereby setting aside his earlier order dismissing the dealer's appeal and allowing the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee and learned Standing Counsel. The proceedings arise out of the dealer's assessment to Certain sales tax for the assessment year 1974-75. The original assessment for the aforesaid year was made by order dated June 30, 1978, by which the Central sales tax were determined at Rs. 14,39,147. 40. Out of this, sales to the extent of Rs. 14,32,829. 07 were covered by form "c" and were taxed at the rate of 3 per cent, while sales of Rs. 6,317. 43 were without form "c" and were taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer discovered that the totalling of the sales covered by form "c" was wrong and such sales were only of Rs. 12,72,329. 87 and, therefore, sales to the extent of Rs. 1,66,817. 53 (this includes sales of Rs. 6,317. 43) were without form "c" which should have been taxed at the rate of 10 per cent. He, therefore, rectified the assessment under section 22 by an order dated February 13, 1980. By an order dated February 28, 1980, the assessing officer also levied penalty on the assessee under section 15-A (1) (c) of the U. P. Act in the sum of Rs. 21,253 for furnishing incorrect particulars of its turnover. The dealer preferred first appeals against both the aforesaid orders to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, who dismissed the same by a common order dated October 24, 1981. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, dismissing the appeal relating to penalty, the dealer preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. However, regarding the order rectifying the assessment order, the dealer moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under section 22 claiming that his order contained a mistake apparent on the record inasmuch as the pumping sets in which the applicant was dealing were agricultural implements and by virtue of a Notification No. ST-1512/x-950 (1)-58 dated March 16, 1970, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act"), the inter-State sales of agricultural implements were taxable only at the rate of 3 per cent which was the tax already assessed and, therefore, there was no need of rectification of the assessment order. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, allowed the application of the assessee by an order dated September 1, 1983, and rectifying his earlier order dated October 24, 1981, he ordered the dealer's first appeal to be allowed. Against the order aforesaid, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the two appeals - the one preferred by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty and the other preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax against the order dated September 1, 1983 - by the impugned order dated February 27, 1988. Admittedly, the sales amounting to Rs. 1,60,500 which the dealer included in the sales covered by form "c" and which were originally assessed by the assessing officer at the rate of 3 per cent represented sales of diesel pumping sets. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that such pumping sets have been held to be agricultural implements by a Full Bench of this Court in Engineering Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1973] 31 STC 456; 1973 UPTC 91. In that case, the dealer was dealing with water pumping sets and under a notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, agricultural implements were taxable at the rate of 2 per cent. The question was whether water pumping sets were agricultural implements. The Full Bench held that the pumping sets were mainly used for agricultural purpose and, therefore, were agricultural implements. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, accepted the dealer's contention that because of the aforesaid ruling, the diesel pumping sets were agricultural implements and, therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid notification dated March 16, 1970, they were taxable at the rate of 3 per cent at which they had already been assessed in the original assessment order dated June 30, 1978. The Tribunal has reversed this view of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, by referring to certain amendments to the U. P. Act. By the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment) act, 1974, the First Schedule to the U. P. Sales Tax Act was amended and entries 1 and 52 were substituted with the following entries : " 1. Agricultural implements, other than implements worked by human or animal power and water pumps, but including their parts and accessories other than tyres and tubes. " " 52. Machinery and spare parts of machinery, including water pumps not being such machinery or spare parts thereof as are taxable under any other item in this Schedule. " Thus, for the purposes of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, water pumps were excluded from the category of agricultural implements and were included in the category of machinery. The Tribunal has also referred to the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1975, by which entries relating to agricultural implements in certain notifications were also amended deleting water pumps from the category of agricultural implements. The Tribunal, therefore, observed that the Legislature had made its intention very clear and excluded water pumps from the category of agricultural implements and included them in the category of machinery and, therefore, according to the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, was not justified in holding that water pumps were liable to tax at the rate of 3 per cent only. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the Legislature had amended the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the notifications issued thereunder, but had not amended the notification dated March 16, 1970, referred to above, which was issued under section 8 (5) of the Central Act and, therefore, in spite of those amendments and in spite of the clarifications made by the Legislature under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, the notification dated March 16, 1970, still governed the rate of tax on inter-State sales of agricultural implements. According to him, the fact that pumping sets are agricultural implements has been so recognised even by the Legislature in making the aforesaid amendments and it was so held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case referred to above, and, therefore, the Tribunal made a mistake in allowing the Commissioner's appeal. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the Full Bench judgment of this Court relied upon by the revisionist has been overruled by the honourable Supreme Court of India in Second Appeals Nos. 996 and 997 of 1975, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Engineering Traders, decided by order dated February 10, 1988. He has placed a copy of the aforesaid judgment before me which shows that the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court was set aside because of the amendments made by the U. P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act by which the relevant provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax act were amended with retrospective effect. The honourable Supreme Court did not upset and reverse the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court that water pumping sets are by their very nature agricultural implements. Because of the legislative enactment, the honourable Supreme Court was not required to go into that question when the Legislature by specific provisions excluded water pumps from the scope of agricultural implements. So far as the Central Act is concerned, the Government of Uttar Pradesh had issued the aforesaid notification dated March 16, 1970, mentioning "agricultural implements" as such without expanding or restricting the scope of those words and in spite of the fact that the Full Bench of this Court had taken the view that water pumping sets are "agricultural implements" because they are mainly used for the purposes of agriculture and in spite of the fact that so far as the U. P. Act is concerned, the State Legislature excluded water pumps from the description of "agricultural implements" and specifically included them in the category of "machinery", the State Government did not choose to amend the notification issued under section 8 (5) of the Central Act on March 16, 1970. Therefore, this notification continued to operate and the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, was right in holding that because of this notification, the sales in question, though not covered by form "c", were still taxable at the rate of 3 per cent only to which they had already been assessed. In my view, therefore, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, was right in rectifying his earlier order dated October 24, 1981, and allowing the dealer's appeal while the Tribunal erred in allowing the Commissioner's appeal. As regards Sales Tax Revision No. 448 of 1988, which arises out of penalty proceedings, the revisionist was patently guilty of furnishing incorrect particulars of its turnover in so far as it included in the category of sales covered by form "c", substantial sales amounting to Rs. 1,16,500 which were not so covered. Therefore, it had made a default within the meaning of second 15-A (1) (c) of the U. P. Act, but it cannot be burdened with any liability because by doing so, no amount of tax could have been avoided, the sales in either case being taxable at the same rate. A default of concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of turnover is punishable by a penalty of a sum not less than 50 per cent, but not exceeding 200 per cent of the amount of tax which could thereby have been avoided. By clubbing the two types of sales, referred to above, the dealer has not avoided any tax and, therefore, the provision which prescribes the calculation of penalty fails in its application and, consequently, no penalty could be levied. This revision too, therefore, would have to be allowed. For the above reasons, both these revision petitions are allowed, the Tribunal's order dated February 27, 1988, is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the Commissioner's Second Appeal No. 285 of 1984 shall stand dismissed while the revisionist's Second Appeal No. 1008 of 1981 shall stand allowed and the penalty levied by the assessing officer vide order dated February 28, 1980, shall stand quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petitions allowed. .;