ORDER DR. A. S. ANAND, C.J. - The assessee - respondent had collected sales tax at 4 per cent (multi-point) on the sale of petroleum jelly purchased from Messrs. Nagpal Petro Chemicals Limited, Madras, during the assessment year 1977-78. The assessee - respondent was also finally assessed by the assessing authority on the said turnover at 4 per cent multi-point. It transpires that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Madras, in another case held that the sales of petroleum jelly by Messrs. Nagpal Petro Chemicals Limited were liable to be taxed at 8 per cent single point, and not at 4 per cent multi-point. Consequent upon the view of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, the Deputy Commissioner, Madras, revised the assessment and directed the assessing authority to treat the sales of petroleum jelly as second sales and cancel the assessment made on the turnover at 4 per cent multi-point. The assessing authority, accordingly revised the proceedings and held that since the assessee - respondent had collected sales tax at 4 per cent multi-point to the extent of Rs. 3,591.42, they had violated the provisions of section 22(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and, therefore, a penalty of Rs. 5,387 under section 22(2) of the Act, being 1 1/2 times the tax due on the tax collected in excess was levied. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also held that the assessee - respondent had violated the provisions of section 22(1) warranting levy of penalty under section 22(2) of the Act. The quantum of penalty, however, was reduced to Rs. 3,591, being equal to the excess tax collected. A second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, which held that the assessee - respondent had not violated the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act, and consequently, the levy of penalty under section 22(2) of the Act was set aside. The Revenue is in revision. There is no dispute so far as the admitted facts are concerned. The assessee - respondent had been assessed at 4 per cent multi-point by the assessing authority. Till the orders were issued by the - Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, the department itself was of the view that the sales of petroleum jelly would attract levy only at 4 per cent multi-point. The assessee - respondent had been assessed at 4 per cent multi-point by the assessing authority. Till the orders were issued by the - Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, the department itself was of the view that the sales of petroleum jelly would attract levy only at 4 per cent multi-point. The collection by the assessee - respondent at 4 per cent multi-point was, therefore, in accordance with the view which was shared by the department itself. The collection by the assessee - respondent, under the circumstances, could be said to be in a bona fide belief that the tax was to be levied multi-point at 4 per cent. It appears to be a case of mutual mistake between the department and the assessee as regards the taxability and the rate of tax, and that being the position, the assessee could not be subjected to penalty where it chose to collect sales tax on the basis of such mutual mistake. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any error whatsoever. In taking this view, we are fortified by the judgment of this High Court in T.C. Nos. 1017 and 1018 of 1984, decided on June 27, 1984, (State of Tamil Nadu v. Sikri and Grower) whereby under some-what similar circumstances, this Court held that penalty was not imposable on the dealer. We find that the State had filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court in T.C. Nos. 1017 and 1018 of 1984, and that S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 8067 and 8068 of 1985 were dismissed by the Supreme Court. The revision filed by the Revenue, therefore, fails, and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.