False representation for concessional sales tax purchases justified penalty; no separate proof of mens rea was required.

Penalty under section 10A read with section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act was sustained because the dealer falsely represented that air-conditioner and film were covered by the registration certificate, although the certificate extended only to machinery and materials required for the printing press. The false representation to obtain concessional purchases against 'C' forms constituted the blameworthy conduct required by section 10(b), and no separate proof of mens rea was necessary for imposing penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was leviable under section 10A read with section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, where the dealer purchased air-conditioner and film by representing that they were covered by the registration certificate, and whether mens rea was required to sustain the penalty.

Analysis: The registration certificate covered only machinery and materials required for the printing press, and air-conditioner and film were not included in that coverage. The authorities below recorded a clear finding that the dealer falsely represented that those goods were covered by the certificate in order to obtain the concessional rate against 'C' forms. In tax delinquency cases, the making of a false representation constitutes the blameworthy conduct contemplated by section 10(b), and the statute does not require any further independent proof of mens rea before penalty can be imposed under section 10A.

Conclusion: The penalty was correctly sustained, and the challenge failed.

---