JUDGMENT VENKATASWAMI, J. - The Revenue, aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore, in C.T.A. No. 418 of 1988 dated April 3, 1990, has preferred this revision petition. Brief facts are the following : The assessment year is 1982-83. The respondent is a co-operative milk producers union. In the taxable turnover for the year in question, the respondent has not included sales of cattle feed, though the respondent has shown that turnover in the total turnover. At this stage, it must be noted that for the earlier assessment years, namely, 1979-80 to 1981-82, sales of cattle feed were exempted by the assessing officers and, therefore, when the assessee/respondent submitted the return, it did not include in the taxable turnover the sales of cattle feed. Subsequently on June 2, 1983, the Revenue revised the earlier assessments and brought under the net of taxation the sales of cattle feed. The respondent could not file a revised return including the sales turnover of cattle feed for the year in question as the time for doing so was over. However, the assessing authority thought that the return submitted by the respondent was incorrect and therefore, will have to be brought under section 12(4). Consequently, penalty under section 12(5)(iii) was levied. The assessee succeeded before the Tribunal in getting the levy of penalty set aside. The Tribunal on facts has found as follows : "In fact the exemptions were allowed originally for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 and the assessments were subsequently revised on June 2, 1983 and by that time the time for filing the consolidated return for the year 1982-83 was also over and therefore the appellants - society have no opportunity to revise its stand in the consolidated return filed for the year 1982-83. But without considering the fact the assessment of the appellants for the year 1982-83 was revised by the assessing authority by levying penalty for the difference between taxable turnover reported and as per accounts. But without considering the fact the assessment of the appellants for the year 1982-83 was revised by the assessing authority by levying penalty for the difference between taxable turnover reported and as per accounts. Admittedly the appellants bona fide believed that cattle feed sales to the member-societies were not exigible to sales tax as per the notification issued by the Government and the conduct of the department by giving exemption in the earlier years also as mentioned by the appellants led to believe that no sales tax could be levied for the sale of cattle feed to the member-societies of the appellants and in fact this Tribunal set aside the levy of penalty under section 12(5) of the Act levied by the assessing authority for the year 1981-82 on similar set of facts in C.T.A. No. 273/84 and therefore the appellants would have bona fide believed that sale of cattle feed to the member-societies of the appellants was exempted from payment of sales tax and therefore the appellants would have shown the turnover as not taxable in the returns submitted by them. But because of the notification issued by the Government assessment was revised and the sale of cattle feed to the member-societies become taxable but the earlier years assessment were revised only on June 2, 1983, but before that the appellants submitted the returns for the year 1982-83 claiming exemption to the sale of cattle feed to the member-societies and so there was no intention on the part of the appellants for wrongly claiming exemption for the sale of cattle feeds to the member-societies and shown the same as not taxable turnover in the returns. There was no mens rea on the part of the appellants to evade payment of tax on the sale of cattle feed to the member-societies and the appellants bona fide believed that the sale of cattle feed to the member-societies were exempted from the payment of sales tax and therefore we feel the levy of penalty by the assessing officer for non-reporting the turnover of cattle feed to the member-societies as taxable turnover is not correct ...." It is the above view of the Tribunal that is challenged before us. In T.C.(R) No. 1008 of 1984 (State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vellore v. Indian Silk Traders - order dated October 9, 1991 ([1994] 94 STC 157 (Mad.) [App.])) the First Bench while considering the scope of section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, observed as follows : "..... we are clearly of the opinion that the bona fides of the assessee have to be gone into before imposing penalty. The guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 45 STC 197 which we have extracted above should be kept in mind by the assessing authority. At the risk of repetition we reiterate that the facts of each case have to be carefully analysed before coming to the conclusion whether a particular return is incorrect or incomplete and whether the assessee returned an incomplete or incorrect return, more with a view to postpone the tax legitimately due to the Government, or under a bona fide belief that his return was in accordance with law." From the facts extracted above, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the assessee bona fide believed that it was claiming exemption in accordance with law and therefore did not include the turnover of sales of cattle feed. The Tribunal was therefore right in setting aside the penalty which is in accordance with the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in T.C. No. (R) 1008 of 1984 order dated October 9, 1991 ([1994] 94 STC 157 - (Mad.) [App.]). In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.