ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) Revisionist is a registered dealer under the Act. For the purposes of raising construction of a colony, it purchases various construction materials like cement etc. from a registered dealer. Such purchases were made by way of a sale invoice and not against tax invoice. The authorities and the Tribunal have penalized the revisionist for having done so by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 54(1)(5) (ii) of the Act. The order of Tribunal records that revisionist had not claimed any benefit of input tax credit for the tax paid in that regard. According to the assessee, it had duly informed the fact to the purchasing dealer about it being a registered dealer and it also disclosed its Tin Number, but it was due to inadvertent error on part of the selling dealer that instead of tax invoice only sale invoice was issued. Revisionist contended that it has not taken any advantage of amount of tax paid and there was no intent on its part to have misrepresented facts, nor there was any deliberate act on its part is not complying with the requirement of obtaining a tax invoice, as against the sale invoice.
(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that imposition of penalty cannot be as a matter of course, and since no advantage had been taken by it, no deliberate act can be attributed to it, and therefore penalty imposed is bad in law.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel submits that the assessee was required to disclose the Tin Number and other details to the selling dealer and to purchase such materials only by way of tax invoice, and once that has not been done, the authorities have correctly imposed penalty upon the revisionist.;