https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157449 The court upheld the penalty imposed on a registered dealer for unauthorized purchases of "silk yarn" at a concessional rate, despite lacking authorization. The petitioner's argument of no mala fide intention was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of mens rea under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between negligent and fraudulent representations, requiring knowledge of misrepresentation. The penalty under section 10-A was reduced to Rs. 22,000, reflecting the tax difference after subsequent incorporation of "silk yarn" in the registration certificate. Both judges concurred on the decision to dispose of the writ petition. en-us Mon, 17 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2013 16:17:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157449 The court upheld the penalty imposed on a registered dealer for unauthorized purchases of "silk yarn" at a concessional rate, despite lacking authorization. The petitioner's argument of no mala fide intention was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of mens rea under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between negligent and fraudulent representations, requiring knowledge of misrepresentation. The penalty under section 10-A was reduced to Rs. 22,000, reflecting the tax difference after subsequent incorporation of "silk yarn" in the registration certificate. Both judges concurred on the decision to dispose of the writ petition. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 17 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157449