JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner herein. The respondent is an abkari contractor. We are concerned with the imposition of penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, "the Act") for the assessment year 1988-89. It has been found by the Appellate Tribunal that the transports of goods by the assessee on two occasions, May 18, 1988 and June 24, 1988, were not supported by any valid documents, mentioned in section 29A(2) of the Act. For such omission a penalty of Rs. 42,680 was imposed by the Intelligence Officer, Trichur, under section 29A of the Act (annexure A). In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the imposition of penalty at the maximum was not warranted in the instant case. He reduced the penalty to Rs. 21,340 by order dated May 8, 1989 (annexure B). In second appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the transport of goods on both the occasions was not supported by relevant documents. The Tribunal also found that the assessee-respondent failed to register itself as a dealer under the Act. Even so, it was held that the absence of records mentioned in section 29A(2) alone was not sufficient to warrant a finding under section 29A(4) of the Act. It was also held that the Revenue failed to prove that there was any attempt for evasion of tax on the goods under transport, and so the penalty imposed was not exigible. The order is dated January 6, 1990 (annexure C). The Revenue has come up in revision. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue Mr. N. N. D. Pillai. As stated, on two occasions, the transport of goods by the respondent-assessee was not accompanied by the documents prescribed by the Act, namely, the delivery notes in form No. 26. The Appellate Tribunal held that even though the transports on both the occasions were not accompanied by valid documents, the further question is, whether the transactions, in pursuance of which the goods were transported, were taxable and further whether an attempt to evade tax could be predicted by the evidence on record. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that on the facts of this case, there is no evidence to prove that there has been any attempt at evasion of tax on the goods under the transport. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that on the facts of this case, there is no evidence to prove that there has been any attempt at evasion of tax on the goods under the transport. As to whether there was any attempt at evasion of tax is a question of fact. As a final fact-finding authority the Appellate Tribunal held that there was no attempt at evasion of tax. We are of the view that the approach of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, that in the absence of facts to prove that there was an attempt of evasion of tax on the goods under transports, no penalty is exigible, even assuming that the transports were not accompanied by prescribed documents, is justified. The detailed order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated January 6, 1990, has properly adverted to the whole question in issue and has held that suspicion is not a substitute for evidence and the orders of the lower authorities, imposing the penalty, is unjustified on facts. This is a pure finding of fact. No error of law is discernible in the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We questioned the learned Government Pleader to point out whether there is any definite finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there was an attempt at evasion of tax on the goods under transport. Counsel could not point out any finding on that score by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In fact, even the primary authority has not entered a definite finding that there was any attempt to evade payment of tax. What he has stated, is that there is no evidence to prove that the two transports were as per the rules and so the transports were with intention to evade tax. The conclusion arrived at, does not logically accord with the facts stated by the Intelligence Officer. There is no error of law in the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. We decline to interfere in revision. The revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.