Govinda Bhat, C.J.
1. The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. He obtained a certificate of registration for the year 1963-64 under section 10 of the Act. The certificate mentioned that the goods covered by the registration are 'general goods'. The petitioner submitted a return of turnover of Rs. 9,190.19 in respect of tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils and agricultural implements. The said turnover was assessed under the Act. The registering authority being of the opinion that although the goods in question were not specified in the certificate of registration, the petitioner-dealer had issued declarations in form C to the effect that they are covered by the registration certificate. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty shall not be levied under section 10(b) of the Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation contending, inter alia, that he bona fide believed that the expression 'general goods' covered goods like tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils, etc., and therefore no penalty was attracted. The 2nd respondent by order dated 17th November, 1964, imposed on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 689.25 under section 10A of the Act. The said order does not satisfy the requirements of section 10(b) of the Act. The condition precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to impose penalty is that there must be a finding that the registered dealer falsely represented when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by the certificate of registration. The said section reads thus :
'10. Penalties. - If any person .............
(b) being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration; or ................ he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both; and when the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues.'
Section 10A reads thus :
'10A Imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution. - (1) If any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of section 10, the authority who granted to him or, as the case may be, is competent to grant to him a certificate of registration under this Act may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, impose upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one-and-a-half times the tax which would have been levied under this Act in respect of the sale to him of the goods if the offence had not been committed ...............'
It will be seen from the above provisions that the offence is committed by a registered dealer when he falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration.
2. The operative portion of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 17th November, 1964, reads thus :
'The dealers have filed the objections for the above show cause notice on 31st October, 1964, stating that the term 'general goods' covered such as implements, tarpaulins, brass and copper utensils. The explanations of the dealers are not fully convincing. Anyhow a lenient view is taken in view of the fact that the goods had already suffered tax at 2 per cent by C.S.T. Act and tax under M.S.T. Act and a penalty of Rs. 689.25 is levied under section 10A of the C.S.T. Act, 1956.'
3. There is no finding that the petitioner falsely represented when purchasing the goods in question that such goods are covered by his certificate of registration. In that view there is a clear error of law in the order made by the 2nd respondent. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, was also dismissed without recording a finding to the same effect. In that view the proper order to make is to quash the impugned order dated 17th November, 1964, made by the 2nd respondent and the order dated 19th July, 1969, made by the 1st respondent, reserving liberty to the 2nd respondent to make fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations.
4. If the penalty has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to him.
5. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50.
6. Ordered accordingly.