JUDGMENT V. K. SINGHAL, J. - The petitioner in the present revision has challenged the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer in respect of levy of penalty under section 22(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 on different legal grounds. The main submission of Mr. Mehta is that the goods found at business premises on August 6, 1980, were duly recorded in the books of account and there was no excess stock on the basis of which the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer could have levied any penalty. He has pointed out that the bills in respect of the purchase of 362 saries were produced before the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and were duly supported by the books of accounts. In the statements which were recorded at the spot at the time of physical stock taken this could not have been pointed out as the partner who was aware was not present. Mr. Mehta has further contended that no inquiry was made by the assessing authority in respect of the bills produced about their genuineness and the inference of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer that the bills were produced to fill up the lacuna is only his presumption without any evidence on record. It was also contended that because neither there was any seizure of the goods, nor the list was prepared in the presence of the two witnesses and the finding being perverse, the penalty is liable to be set aside more so no reasons for levy of the maximum of penalty has been given in the order. An affidavit was also submitted to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Beawar which has totally been ignored by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The contention of Mr. Bapna, learned counsel for the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer is that one of the partners has given the statement at the time of checking of the stock and the explanation given subsequently is only an afterthought. I have considered over the matter. If there is an admission by an assessee prima facie it is sufficient to take the action against him, unless it could be proved that the admission is against fact or against the law. In the present case the assessee has produced the books of accounts and submitted the bill before the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. If there is an admission by an assessee prima facie it is sufficient to take the action against him, unless it could be proved that the admission is against fact or against the law. In the present case the assessee has produced the books of accounts and submitted the bill before the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. It was the duty of the assessing authority to make an inquiry about the genuineness of the bill and if on inquiry it was found that the bills have only been arranged to cover the lapses on the part of the assessee then on the basis of such evidence on record the penalty would have been justified. Once an evidence is submitted before the assessing authority it is his duty to make investigation and prove the said document as forged or fabricated or that they do not represent the genuine transaction. It is abhorrent to our sense of justice that a man is penalised without making any inquiry. There may be a case where a false entry has subsequently been made in the books of account. This may happen when the books are in possession of the assessee and not assessing authority. In the present case, when the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer found that there was any excess stock more than what was declared in the books of account it was his duty to have seized the books of account at the same time so that the contingency of making any subsequent entry as alleged would have been avoided. If the assessee has actually purchased the saries and it was a case of only wrong posting in a different khata, then it would be unjust to penalise him under section 22(6) and to allege that the said goods are not recorded in the books of account. The assessing authority could have made inquiries from the sellers of those saries who have issued the bills, and the mode of transportation, the mode of payment and all other matters could have been inquired but simply after submission of an evidence in the penalty order they cannot be rejected as fabricated bills without making any inquiry. The finding of the Tribunal is perverse as no inquiry was made from the suppliers of the saries, etc., in respect of these purchases of the assessee. The finding of the Tribunal is perverse as no inquiry was made from the suppliers of the saries, etc., in respect of these purchases of the assessee. Penalty cannot be levied simply on the supposition or presumption and it is the burden of the assessing authority to prove the offence. The assessee may take an incorrect legal plea, but to prove it so is the burden of the assessing authority after making due inquiry and bringing the evidence on record in this regard. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the documentary evidence which was produced before the assessing authority without making any inquiry. Consequently, the revision is allowed, the orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal and the lower authorities are set aside and the matter is remanded to the assessing authority for making the inquiry de novo in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.