JUDGMENT Dr. A. S. Anand, C.J. - This is an assessee's tax revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated October 12, 1981. The assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 85,350.25 for the assessment year 1975-76. The officers of the inspection wing had inspected the business premises and residence of a partner of assessee on March 29, 1976 and recovered certain records, which were referable to the year 1975-76. They were verified with regular accounts, and it was found that they had not accounted for certain receipts. The accounts were therefore found to be not reliable and rejected by the assessing authority. Recourse thereafter was taken to the best of judgment assessment. The turnover determined on the basis of the best of judgment assessment was Rs. 1,26,636, and the taxable turnover was determined at Rs. 1,25,376. After the assessment was completed, it appears, that the succeeding assessing officer was of the view that but for the inspections made by the inspection wing, the assessee would not have brought the suppressed sales to account, and, therefore, he was of the opinion that the levy of penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, at 11/2 times the tax due on the actual suppression was called for. Hence it was proposed to levy a penalty of Rs. 2,842, being 1 1/2 times the tax due on the actual suppression of Rs. 37,891 for the assessment year 1975-76. The proposal was communicated to the assessee, who was called upon to file objections. After the objections were filed and the parties were heard, the assessing officer, by proceeding dated November 15, 1980, levied a penalty of Rs. 2,842 on account of the suppression sales. When appeal was preferred by the assessee against the levy of penalty in exercise of the powers under section 12(3) of the Act, the plea raised before the appellate authority was that the succeeding assessing officer did not have jurisdiction to levy a penalty through a separate order under section 12(3), where in the original assessment order, no penalty was levied. The appellate authority noticed the amendment to section 12(3) by Act 31 of 1972, and opined that the successor in-office did not suffer from any disability to levy penalty through a separate order, where the levy of penalty was otherwise called for. The appellate authority noticed the amendment to section 12(3) by Act 31 of 1972, and opined that the successor in-office did not suffer from any disability to levy penalty through a separate order, where the levy of penalty was otherwise called for. However, the appellate authority, while maintaining the penalty, reduced the extent to 50 per cent of the penalty levied by the assessing officer. The assessee took up the matter in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, where the appeal failed. The assessee has come up in revision. The only plea that has been raised before us is the reiteration of the plea that was raised before the first appellate authority. It has been canvassed that the succeeding officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty under section 12(3) of the Act, since in the original order of assessment, the assessing authority had not levied penalty. Reliance has been placed on State of Madras v. Ramulu Naidu [1965] 16 STC 865 (Mad.) in support of the submission. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has no validity after the amendment of section 12(3) by the amending Act 3 of 1972. By the amendment of section 12(3), the Legislature has provided that as assessing officer could levy penalty even through a separate order, and there is no prohibition for the succeeding officer to levy penalty in the circumstances in which levy of penalty is called for. The decision State of Madras v. Ramulu Naidu [1965] 16 STC 865 (Mad.), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner dealt with the pre-amendment position of section 12(3). It has not relevancy or applicability to the position of law after section 12(3) has been amended. The scope of the amended section 12(3) came up for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Govardhana Engineering Industries [1986] 63 STC 109. In that case, on inspection of the business premises of the assessee, certain record was recovered, and it was found that the sale covered by one of the slips in that record had not been included by the assessee in the turnover returned by him. In the assessment order, the assessing officer took recourse to best of judgment assessment, but did not take any proceeding for levy of penalty for suppression of the turnover. In the assessment order, the assessing officer took recourse to best of judgment assessment, but did not take any proceeding for levy of penalty for suppression of the turnover. The succeeding officer, however, found that the suppression of the turnover called for levy of penalty, and ultimately estimating the probable suppression and levied penalty. The appellate authority confirmed the levy of penalty, but reduced the amount. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the assessee that as the assessing officer, who had passed the order of assessment had no intention to levy penalty, the succeeding officer was not justified in levying penalty. The Tribunal found that the slip recovered did not relate to assessee's business and therefore it was not open to the succeeding officer to levy penalty. On revision, the Division Bench held that the Tribunal erred in its view that the succeeding officer had no jurisdiction to levy penalty in a case where the original authority had not passed an order levying penalty. That judgment is fully applicable to this case, and we are in agreement with the law laid down in Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) v. Govardhana Engineering Industries [1986] 63 STC 109. Consequently this revision has no merit and it is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.