IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL S.T.R. No. 99 of 2001 (Old No. 1008 of 1992) Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. Lucknow. …………Applicant/Revisionist Vs. S.K. Construction Co. Ltd Racecourse, Dehradun …………..Opposite Party Shri Pitamber Maulekhi, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Revisionist. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This Sales Tax Revision was filed before the Allahabad High Court in the year 1992, from where it has been received by transfer by this Court, under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. The revision, preferred under Section 11(1) of U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is directed against order/ award dated 06.02.1992, passed by Sales Tax Tribunal, Dehradun. The question of law involved in this revision is :- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty order passed under Section 10 D of Central Sales Tax Act despite the fact the dealer has acted in contravention of provisions of aforesaid act. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. No one appeared on behalf of the respondent, even after service of notice. The assessee is a contractor who has imported the goods for work contract. The matter pertains to the assessment year 1985-86. The goods were imported by the assessee, after obtaining form-C from the Sales Tax Officer, with the declaration that he would utilize the goods imported in the work contract. In other words, the goods imported were not meant for sale. After the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, was amended vide U.P. Act No. 25 of 1985, a notification No. 2399, dated 27.04.1987 was issued, where after the work contract were covered under the ‘Sale’. In the present case, the dealer has declared in form 14 that he is doing business of construction and would use the goods imported in construction work. Accordingly, the goods used for construction work were treated to be so under section 8(3) of Central Sales Tax Act. However, the question before this Court is whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay penalty for he did not intend to avoid the tax. Since form-C was issued by the Sales Tax Officer himself and the assessee was a registered unit and notification was issued only on 27.04.1987 in pursuance to the amendment made in the Sales Tax Act, making the amendment retrospective from the year 1983, there cannot be said to be any intention or wilful act on the part of the assessee to evade the tax for the assessment year 1985-86. In the circumstances, Sales Tax Tribunal has committed no error of in holding that the assessee was not liable to pay penalty under Section 10 D of Central Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the question of law is answered accordingly in favour of the assessee. The revision is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 01.08.2005 Sweta