https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159391 Penalty under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act was attracted only if the dealer falsely represented that the purchased goods were covered by the registration certificate. On the facts, the assessee had long traded in hardware and non-ferrous metals, the department had earlier described its business in similar terms, and the disputed goods were consistently claimed to fall within "hardware". The later request to amend the registration certificate was not an admission of falsity. As the materials supported a bona fide belief and two views were reasonably possible on the scope of "hardware", the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty was not leviable and the Revenue's revision failed. en-us Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:41:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159391 Penalty under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act was attracted only if the dealer falsely represented that the purchased goods were covered by the registration certificate. On the facts, the assessee had long traded in hardware and non-ferrous metals, the department had earlier described its business in similar terms, and the disputed goods were consistently claimed to fall within "hardware". The later request to amend the registration certificate was not an admission of falsity. As the materials supported a bona fide belief and two views were reasonably possible on the scope of "hardware", the Tribunal was correct in holding that penalty was not leviable and the Revenue's revision failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159391