https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156028 Penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act could be imposed by the competent registration authority in Tripura, so the jurisdictional objection failed. However, penalty for an alleged section 10(b) breach required a clear finding that the dealer falsely represented goods as covered by the registration certificate, together with mens rea; a technical breach or bona fide mistake was insufficient. The proceedings were also invalid because the show-cause notice lacked essential particulars of the alleged default and the penalty order was non-speaking. The penalty was therefore quashed for want of a proper finding, fair hearing, and reasoned decision-making. en-us Fri, 16 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:53:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156028 Penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act could be imposed by the competent registration authority in Tripura, so the jurisdictional objection failed. However, penalty for an alleged section 10(b) breach required a clear finding that the dealer falsely represented goods as covered by the registration certificate, together with mens rea; a technical breach or bona fide mistake was insufficient. The proceedings were also invalid because the show-cause notice lacked essential particulars of the alleged default and the penalty order was non-speaking. The penalty was therefore quashed for want of a proper finding, fair hearing, and reasoned decision-making. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 16 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156028