The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intentional misrepresentation and the need to prove the purpose of purchase and use of goods to establish offences under the Central Sales Tax Act.

( 1 ) THE Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalore, commenced proceedings against the petitioner who is the proprietor of a business concern which engages in retreading tyres, for the imposition of penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act on the allegation that he had committed offences under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of that Act.

( 2 ) BY an order in which he did not record findings in support of his conclusion, he directed the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 4,628. 50 in respect of the assessment year 1961-62 and a sum of Rs. 5,649. 89 in respect of the year 1962-63.

( 3 ) THERE were two unsuccessful appeals preferred by the petitioner to the Assistant commissioner, and in the further appeals preferred to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal the limited relief which he secured was a reduction in the penalty.

( 4 ) IN these two revision petitions, the petitioner asks us to quash the orders made in that way.

( 5 ) THE petitioner was registered as a dealer under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act (which will be referred to as "the Act") and a registration certificate was granted to him under section 7 (4) which authorised him to purchase goods belonging to the class of "rubber': He did make purchases of rubber slabs and other articles made for rubber known as repairs material and curing air bags. He also purchased paints of a small value.

( 6 ) THERE were two charges against the petitioner. The first charge rested on the allegation that repairs material and curing air bags and paints were not covered by the certificate of registration, but that he used the certificate of registration, for making these purchases to get the benefit of the lower rate of sales tax to which section 8 refers. The second charge rested on the allegation that the goods so purchased were not used for the purposes enumerated in section 8 (3) (b ).

( 7 ) AN imposition of penalty under section 10-A is possible only when a person who purchases goods under a certificate of registration, commits an offence under clause (b) (c) or (d) of section 10 and the notice which was issued to the petitioner stated that offences under clauses (b) and (d)had been committed by the petitioner. These two clauses read :

"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 * * * * (d) after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3)of section 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose; * * * * 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. "

( 8 ) IT is seen from clause (b) that an offence is committed under it only when there is a false representation by a registered dealer that the goods purchased by him were covered by his certificate of registration. It is not every purchase of goods which is not covered by a certificate of registration that constitutes an offence. That offence is committed only when the goods are not covered by the certificate of registration and there is a false representation that they are so covered.

( 9 ) THE representation to which clause (b) refers becomes a false representation only when the registered dealer knows that the goods purchased by him are not covered by his certificate of registration but asserts that they are so covered and is thus able to purchase them. An intentional misrepresentation that the goods were covered by the certificate is an essential ingredient on the establishment of which alone an offence can be said to have been committed. That was the enunciation made by this Court in M. Pais and Sons v. State of Mysore. [[1966] 17 S. T. C.