YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.P. Tripathi, learned standing counsel.
(2.) This revision has been preferred against a judgment of the Tribunal dated 12 February 2007, which has, while setting the aside the decision of the first appellate authority, restored the view taken by the assessing authority that the revisionist was liable to be visited with penalty under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956.
(3.) The issue itself arises in the following backdrop. The revisionist held a registration certificate for "adhesive tape". During the assessment year in question it also manufactured and consigned adhesive stickers and labels. It was its case that all three commodities were being utilized for the purposes of packaging goods and materials. It is also undisputed that on 15 December 1993, the revisionist moved an application for amendment of its registration certificate and for inclusion of the commodities namely adhesive stickers and labels. The assessing authority has, while accepting the contention of the revisionist that all three commodities were used as packing material, proceeded to hold that the fact that the assessee applied for amendment is clearly evidence of the fact that he had made a false representation and would thus fall within the ambit of Section 10-A of the CST Act. The first appellate authority has held in favour of the assessee and had noted that there was no misrepresentation or false representation. This order of the first appellate authority has been interfered with by the Tribunal. The Court finds itself unable to sustain the view taken by the Tribunal for the following reasons.;