R.L. Gulati, J.
1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lucknow, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly, has referred the following question for our opinion :
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had falsely represented when purchasing goods in the course of inter-State trade and commerce that it was a registered dealer and is/was it liable to pay penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act ?
2. The assessee is a partnership-firm. Until the assessment year 1961-62, there were two partners in the firm, namely, Mahanand, representing the joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his three brothers, and Sri Ram Asrey. This firm was duly registered under Section 8-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act and also under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act. With effect from 1st April, 1962, a change in the constitution of the firm was brought about inasmuch as Mahanand and his three brothers became partners in their individual capacities. Thus the firm came to be constituted by five partners. On 30th March, 1963, an application in form XIV was submitted to the Sales Tax Officer, Budaun, in which the names of the partners of the newly constituted firm were mentioned. The Sales Tax Officer instead of granting a fresh registration to the new firm, renewed the old registration through an oversight. This renewal was made under Section 8-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. There was no application for registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act. The same- position prevailed in the subsequent two assessment -years, namely, 1963-64 and 1964-65. During these three years the Sales Tax Officer issued C forms to the firm which it utilised in due course for purposes of its business. The mistake was detected by the audit party which recommended action under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act for making false representations, inasmuch as the firm had obtained C forms without obtaining registration. In due course the Sales Tax Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 2,416.86. The assessee's appeal was rejected. On revision, the revising authority held that the assessee was not guilty of any dishonesty and it had not made any false representation to obtain C forms. In his opinion it was clearly an accidental mistake. He accordingly quashed the penalty.
3. Under Section 10A a person is liable for prosecution or penalty if he is guilty of an offence under Clause (b), (c) or (d) of Section 10. In the instant case, Clause (c) would apply, which provides that if a person, not being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce that he is a registered dealer, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, etc. The finding of the revising authority that the assessee had not made any false representation while purchasing goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce by using C forms is a finding of fact. Such a finding cannot be questioned except on the ground that it is without any material or is perverse. No such question has been raised. Indeed, we find ample material on the record to justify the finding of the revising authority. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question as framed is not a question of law. Even if we reframe the question the answer would be in favour of the assessee and against the department. In these circumstances it is not necessary to return any answer to the question.
4. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 100.