B. N. Srikrishna, C. J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 18th December, 1992, quashing and setting aside a penalty order imposed on the respondent by Exts. P6 to P6(s).

The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. On 3rd July 1976, the appellant purchased tea estates of three companies known as Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd., Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd., and Amalgamated Tea Estates Ltd. These three companies were registered in the United Kingdom and for the sake of brevity they are hereinafter referred to as "U. K. Companies".

2. The concerned officer of the Sales Tax Department issued three registration certificates which were valid from 1. 7.1957 until cancelled. The respondent has been issued with notices by the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer, Munnar for offences alleged to be under S.10(a) and 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") committed by the three U. K. Companies between 1967 and 1973, arising out of different orders passed against the said companies on different dates. The three U. K. Companies held registrations under the Central Sales Tax Act from 1.7.1967, which covered all goods necessary for the business of tea estates specified that the holders could deal, inter alia, in goods under the head "cultivation" and "crop cultivation", which attracted concessional rate of sales tax under S.8 of the Act.

4. In proceedings numbered as K-1/C, the Sales Tax Officer, Devikulam came to the conclusion that that one of the U. K. Companies was not entitled to purchase goods under the head "cultivation" and "crop protection" as such goods were not necessary for the business of tea. This order was passed in respect of Kannan Devan Hill Produce Co. Ltd. (for short "KDHP"). By the impugned order made on 25. 8.1966 the Sales Tax Officer disallowed those goods for the purpose of S.8 of the Act. The certificate of registration which allowed the purchase of these goods ought to have been taken back from KDHP to bring them in conformity with the order, but this was not done. Consequently, the unamended original certificate continued with the company, KDHP, and happened to be used subsequent to the aforesaid order. In the appeal filed by KDHP, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 5.8.1969 allowed the appeal and set aside the order made by the Sales Tax Officer, Devikulam disallowing the goods under the head "cultivation" and "crop protection". Consequently, the original certificate without the deletion of the heads "cultivation" and "crop protection" continued to operate. However, on further appeal by the Department, the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and restored the order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 25.8.1966. The order of the Tribunal was subsequently upheld by the High Court. Similarly, in the case of other two companies, viz. Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (for short, "ADT") and Amalgamated Tea Estates Ltd. (for short, "ATE") also, orders were made by the Sales Tax Officer excluding from the certificates of registration the goods under the head "cultivation" and "crop protection".

5. The issue as to whether the goods falling under the head "cultivation" and "crop cultivation" were eligible for exemption under S.8 of the Central Sales Tax Act was the subject of controversial litigation between the U. K. Companies and the Department. The uncertainty as to the eligibility of the said goods for concessional rate of sales tax was finally resolved by the judgment of the Supreme Court on 11.10. 1976.

6. After 1974, the Sales Tax Officer, Devikulam issued notices to KDHP, ADT and ATE to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed under S.10A of the Act, for violation of Ss.10(b) and 10(d) thereof. The substance of the charge was that, C forms under the CST Act were issued