TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02-2003 raising the following questions of law: "1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erroneously decided the question of law before it when it proceeded on the basis that the mere absence of a reference to a commodity in the Form-B registration certificate will by itself show a false representation within the meaning of Section 10(b) of the CST Act, 1956? 2. Whether the expression "machine" found in the Form B registration certificate of the petitioner satisfied the expression "any class of goods" found in Section 10(b) of the CST Act? 3. Whether the omission of the Tribunal to take into account the affidavit of SEONG TAE KIM one of the Directors of the petitioner, has resulted in the Tribunal deciding the question of law before it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. After considering the objections, the Assessing Officer, however, rejected the claim of the applicant holding that the assessee had falsely represented that the goods purchased were covered by the Certificate of Registration entitled to concession of levy by use of Form "C". 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee went on appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who once again confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer, pointed out that if the claim of the assessee that generators and air conditioner fall under the category of machines was correct, then, they would not have included welding machines and mechanical press in the Certificate of Registration. Thus once the assessee had included welding machines and mechanical press in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Authorities below. 6. Aggrieved by this, the present revision has been preferred by the assessee. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the generator set purchased by the assessee is also a machinery, under the bona fide impression that the certificate of registration included such diesel generator set, the assessee purchased the same as against "C" form declaration. Thus there was no mensrea or false representation to be imputed on the conduct of the assessee. Consequently, the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, has to be set aside. 8. In this connection, he placed reliance on the Full Bench Decision of this Court reported in [2006] 148 STC 256(Mad) [FB] [State of Tamil Nadu vs. Nu-Tread Tyres] as well....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956." Thus applying the said decision, in the unreported decision in T.C. No.2151 of 2008 [cited supra], this Court pointed out that in dealing with the question of levy of penalty, particularly as regards Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act,1956 is concerned, one has to necessarily keep in mind the nature of the business of the assessee. 10. Thus holding, this Court pointed out that the registration certificate of the assessee therein included yarn cloth, knitting sewing textile machines, dyeing winch, boiler, calendering machines, dyes, chemicals, tag gun, spray gun, elastic, zip, buttons, drier, generator, oil engine, alternator, electric motor, needle, LSD and HSO oil and j....