Jaswant Singh, J.;— 1. M/S Jammu Metal Rolling Mills, Talab, Tillo, Jammu, a partnership firm registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Partnership Act, applied for registration under Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "The Act"). The application on behalf of the firm in form "A" as prescribed by Rule 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act (Registration and Turnover Rules), 1957, was submitted by Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain, one of the partners, on October 19, 1963. After processing the same and obtaining a report from the concerned inspector the Assessing Authority, Sales Tax Circle B, Jammu, issued certificate bearing No. 2225-SDB dated October 23,1963, authorising the firm to purchase in the course of inter-state trade or commerce goods specified below for the purpose of re-sale: "Machinery parts, raw material, polishing goods, coal, paints, electric goods, motor and chemicals". Although the certificate issued in favour of the firm did not conform to the request made by it in its aforesaid application inasmuch as in the application the aforesaid goods were specified as required for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, the firm did not ask for amendment of the certificate and went on making purchases of machinery for four years by utilizing the "C" forms-certificates that goods mentioned in the purchase orders or purchased are covered by the registration certificate issued to the dealer. The goods worth Rs. 44124.79 thus purchased were not resold by the firm but were utilized by it in the installation of its Rolling Mills. On receipt of information that the firm had contravened Section 8(3) of the Act by using the "C" forms for the purpose for which they were not issued to it, the Assessing Authority secured the account books of the firm and after checking the same and verifying the matter issued a notice calling upon the firm to show cause why penalty in accordance with section 10-A of the Act be not imposed on it. In its reply to the show cause notice the firm represented that in its application for registration it had declared that the aforesaid goods were to be purchased by it for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale and had not specified that the goods were required for resale and that the registration certificate issued in its favour was contrary to that declaration. The Assessing Authority being, however, of the opinion that the firm not being a dealer on the date of its application for registration was not entitled to a registration certificate for manufacturing purposes, that the classification of goods, specified for the purpose of concessional rate of tax under rule 13 of the Central Sales Tax Rules did not warrant purchase of machinery or other goods mentioned in the registration certificate for use in the installation of Rolling Mills and the firm had by purchasing the goods for resale and utilizing the same for its personal use contravened the provisions of section 8 (3) of the Act and was liable to pay the penalty under Section 10-A of the Act passed an order dated February 2,1967, imposing a penalty of Rs. 4500/-. Computing the tax at 10% the Assessing authority also held that the firm had evaded payment of the sale tax amounting to Rs. 3529.98. Against this order the firm went up in revision to the Sales Tax Commissioner, J & K Government. The Commissioner expressed the view that the firm not having started manufacture of utensils and not being qualified for dealership on the date of its application was not entitled to be registered, that if the certificate did not contain the correct description of the goods the firm ought to have applied for its amendment and that the action of the firm in going on making purchases of the goods in the inter state trade by misuse of the certificate came within the mischief of clause (d) of section 10 of the Act. The Commissioner further held that the concessional rate of tax is available only in respect of the purpose specified in the Registration Certificate and if the purchasing dealer makes use of the goods for a purpose other than the one which he is authorised to do, he commits an offence punishable under section 10(d) of the Act. The plea that the firm had specified in its application that it had to purchase goods for use in the manufacture of utensils and the certificate had been wrongly issued by the Assessing Authority did not prevail with the Commissioner. He accordingly rejected the revision petition. 2. The aforesaid orders of the Sales Tax authorities were assailed by means of a writ petition filed before this court on May 12,1969. Hon'ble Bhat J. who heard the petition while observing that there was no substance in the plea of the firm that it was not liable to pay any penalty as it had specified in its application that the goods were required for use in the manufacture or processing of goods for sale, held that the maximum penalty that could be levied on the firm was 3% on Rs. 44124.79 which came to Rs. 1123.75. He accordingly reduced the penalty from Rs. 4500/- to Rs. 1323.75. In support of his order the learned Judge relied on a decision of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Prem Industries Corporation (1969) 24 S.T.C. 507. Aggrieved by the order of reduction in the penalty made by Hon'ble Bhat J. the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner Sales Tax, have filed this letters Patent Appeal. The firm has also filed cross objections against the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Bhat J. holding that it was liable to pay the penalty. On the matter coming up before two of us, we referred it to a Full Bench in view of the conflict of judicial opinion as expressed in State of Madras v. Prem Industries Corporation (1969) 24, S. T. C. 507 and M. Pais and Sons and another v. The State of Mysore, (1966), 17, S. T. C. 161. This is how the case is before this bench. 3. Mr. A. N. Raina, appearing on behalf of the Sales Tax Department has besides raising a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the cross objections has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in reducing the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority and confirmed by the Sales Tax Commissioner. Inviting our attention to the concluding words of Section 10-A of the Act viz. "imposes upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one and-a-half times the tax which would have been levied under the Act in respect of the sale to him of the goods if the offence had not been committed" he has urged that as the non-concessional rate payable on the goods was 10% of the value of the goods the firm was liable to pay 15% of the value of the goods as penalty. 4. Mr. Ishwar Singh has besides contending that the cross objections filed by his client are maintainable urged that his client was not liable to pay any penalty as the specification by the Assessing Authority in the registration certificate for purpose of sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act did not confirm to the specifications in the respondent's application and that in any event the words "if the offence had not been committed" occurring in the aforesaid Section 10-A of the Act made his client liable to pay the penalty only to the extent of one-and-a-half times the concessional rate of 2%. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and am of the opinion that the contentions advanced by Mr. Ishwar Singh have no force. 6. Regarding his first contention, it may be observed that what we are concerned with is not what is mentioned in the application of the respondent but what is contained in the Registration Certificate issued to him. If the respondent had any complaint regarding the registration certificate he ought to have got it amended and not rest content with the classification of goods as specified in the certificate. Not having done so, and having utilized the certificate for a purpose for which it was not issued, the respondent cannot turn round and say that it was not liable to pay any penalty as the certificate of registration did not conform to its application in so far as the specification of the purpose of the purchase of the goods was concerned. Assuming without holding that the submission made by Mr. Ishwar Singh is correct, and a wrong certificate was issued by the Assessing authority and the respondent was entitled to purchase the goods for use in manufacture of goods for sale even then the respondent could not escape penalty as the goods were not used for that purpose but were admittedly used in installation of the mill a purpose wholly foreign to the classification of goods as envisaged by sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 8 of the Act and the rules on the subject. The fact therefore that in the application for registration the respondent had specified that the goods were to be purchased for use in the manufacture of goods for sale and the registration certificate was for the purchase of goods for re-sale would not amount to a reasonable excuse within the meaning of clause (d) of section 10 of the Act. The first contention raised by Mr. Ishwar Singh, therefore fails. 7. There is also no substance in the second contention of Mr. Ishwar Singh. Section 10(d) and 10-A of the Act which are relevant for the purpose of this appeal read as under: - "Section 10(d). Penalties; If any person-XXX XXX XXX (d) After purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in Cl. (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails without any reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose; he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both; and when the offence is a continuing offence with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues. XXX XXX XXX Section 10-A Imposition of Penalty in lieu of prosecution. If any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of Section 10, the authority who granted to him or as the case may be is competent to grant to him a certificate of registration under this Act may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order in writing impose upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one-and-a-half times the tax which would have been levied under this Act in respect of the sale to him of the goods if the offence had not been committed. Provided that no prosecution for an offence under Section 10 shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this Section." The concluding words of Section 10-A of the Act namely "impose upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one-and-a-half times the tax which would have been levied under this Act in respect of the sale to him of the goods if the offence had not been committed" are not susceptible of the interpretation sought to be placed by Mr. Ishwar Singh. If his interpretation is accepted it would be very easy for any unscrupulous dealer to manage a certificate of registration, mis-use it, and escape by paying one and half times the concessional tax which would be far less than the normal rate payable by an honest dealer. This could surely not be the intention of the Legislature. All that the aforesaid words in my opinion mean is that the person committing the offence specified in section 10(d) of the Act would be liable to penalty which would extend to one and half times the tax payable by a person who purchases goods for a purpose not covered by the certificate of registration or the penalty would be upto one and half times the tax which an honest dealer would have normally to pay while purchasing the goods of similar description for similar use. Any other interpretation would lead to absurd results and will have the effect of putting a premium on the mis-use of certificate of registration by unscrupulous dealers. I am fortified in my opinion by a decision of the Orissa High court in Bisra Limestone company Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer Rourkcla Circle, Udintnagar, 1971T. L. R. 454; (1971) 27 S. T. C. The following passage occurring in that decision is worth quoting: - "The third contention of Mr. Patnaik is based on the language of section 10A(1) which says that the penalty should not exceed one and a half times" the tax which would have been levied under this Act in respect of the sale to him of the goods if the offence had not been committed". According to him even if the goods are purchased at a concessional rate on a false representation that they were covered by the certificate of registration, the penalty that can be imposed cannot exceed one and a half times the concessional rate and not the normal rate. The contention is not sound. If the goods are mentioned in the certificate of registration and such goods are purchased at the concessional rate the purchasing dealer commits no offence under section 10(b) and the question of imposing penalty does not arise at all. The question of penalty would arise only when the goods are not mentioned in the certificate of registration and the purchase of the same is made on a false representation made by the purchasing dealer that they were so mentioned. If the normal rate had been laid for the goods without making any false representation no offence under section 10(b) would be committed. It is only to such cases that the expression "if the offence had not been committed" has application and the penalty payable would be one and a half times the normal rate. The Mysore High court took this view in Pais and Sons v. State of Mysore. Though this decision was held to be not laying down good law in a later decision of the Madras High court in State of Madras v. Prem Industrial Corporation on which Mr. Patnaik relied, with respect we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the Mysore High court. Mr. Patnaik's contention on this point is therefore rejected." 8. The under-mentioned passage occurring in another decision of the Mysore High Court in M. Pais and Sons and another v. The State of Mysore, (1966) 17 S. T. C. 161 will also repay a perusal: - 'The last contention advanced by Mr. Krishna Murthy was that on a true interpretation of Section 10-A it is clear that his client should have been levied penalty only at 1-1/2 percent of the disputed turnover and not at the rate of 10-1/2 percent as done by the authorities below. The contention again does not appear to be correct. All sales of goods validly covered by "C" forms are liable to be taxed at one percent on their turnover. Such of the goods which are not validly covered by "C" forms are liable to be taxed at 7% of the turnover. The penalty provided by Section 10-A is one and a half times the tax leviable. We have earlier come to the conclusion that the goods with which we are concerned in these cases, were not covered by any valid "C" forms and, therefore, Sales Tax was leviable on them at 7 percent of the turnover. If that be so, as we think it is so the penalty on that turnover was leviable at 10 and half percent of the turnover." 9. I have gone through the decision of the Madras High court in (1969) 24 S. T. C. 507 on which strong reliance is placed by Mr. Ishwar Singh but with utmost respect to the learned Judges who decided the case, I do not agree with their interpretation that a penalty of one and a half times in a case of the present nature is to be calculated on the concessional rate of the tax. 10. On a true interpretation of section 10-A of the Act, I am of opinion that the respondent was liable to pay one and half times the normal rate of the tax and not the concessional or lower rate of tax. I would therefore allow the appeal, filed by the Sales Tax authorities and set aside the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 11. Before concluding this judgment I would also like to advert to the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Raina regarding the maintainability of the cross objections filed by the respondent. The preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that right to file cross objections is not available in respect of Letters Patent appeal. Reference in this connection may be made to two decisions of the Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1957 Allahabad and AIR 1962 Allahabad, 509. Reference may also be made with advantage to a division bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1962 J&K 89 where it was held that Order 41 Rule 22 C. P. C. has no application to a Letters Patent appeal more specially so when it reates to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India corre-spending to Section 103 of the State Constitution. The cross objections filed by the respondent are therefore, obviously not maintainable. Even on merits there is no substance in these cross-objections in view of my conclusion that the respondent is liable to pay the penalty. I would, therefore, dismiss the cross objections. _____________