JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in both the revisions. The revisions are filed by the Revenue against a common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, rendered in T.A. Nos. 213/80 and 226/80 dated September 25, 1991. The respondent in both the revisions is the same person. He is one K. Vasantha, driver of lorry No. MYZ 5828. He transported 73 bags of supari worth Rs. 46,720 which belonged to unknown persons on April 3, 1977. The Inspector attached to the Intelligence Squad, Kasaragod, served a notice on him on April 3, 1977 under section 29A(2) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, on the ground that he suspected that there is an attempt to evasion of tax due on the turnover involved in the above goods. His statement was recorded. Subsequently the Intelligence Officer of Sales Tax, Kasaragod, by order dated May 5, 1977 levied a penalty of Rs. 5,606 under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The cash security of Rs. 5,606 deposited by the driver of the lorry on April 4, 1977 was adjusted towards the said penalty. In appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Cannanore, by order dated August 1, 1980 cancelled the penalty. He held that the officer who set in motion the proceedings under section 29A(2) of the Act himself disposed of the case under section 29A(3) read with section 29A(4) of the Act and it was incompetent. The Revenue as well as the driver of the lorry filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode. The Revenue filed the appeal contending that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in error in holding that the penalty imposed was unauthorised and not exigible. The driver of the lorry appealed before the Appellate Tribunal contending that the Appellant Commissioner was in error in not directing refund of the penalty imposed on him. The appeal filed by the State T.A. No. 213/80 and the appeal filed by the driver of the lorry T.A. No. 226/80 were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal by a common order on September 25, 1991. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that the person who initiated the penalty proceedings himself imposed the penalty and so the levy of penalty was unauthorised and incompetent. The Appellate Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in holding that the person who initiated the penalty proceedings himself imposed the penalty and so the levy of penalty was unauthorised and incompetent. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed. In the appeal filed by the driver of the lorry he adduced additional evidence, oral and documentary. After perusing the entire materials in the case Appellate Tribunal held that the Intelligence Officer has failed to establish that there is an attempt to evade tax due to the Kerala State Government in the transport of the goods. The order imposing penalty was set aside and the Intelligence Officer was directed to refund the amount collected as penalty to the driver of the lorry. The State has come up in revisions against the said common order dated September 25, 1991 passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. The respondent, driver of the lorry, was not represented before us. 3. The learned Government Pleader produced before us the files of the Intelligence Wing of the department to show that the proceedings under section 29A(2) of the Act were initiated and recorded by the intelligence Inspector attached to the department and the penalty was levied by the Intelligence Officer. In other words, it is not the same officer who initiated the proceedings under section 29A(2) of the Act who levied the penalty. It was on this assumption the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal held that the levy of penalty was unauthorised since the same officer who initiated the proceedings under section 29A(2) of the Act passed the order of penalty under section 29A(3) read with section 29A(4) of the Act. On perusal of the files we find that the plea of the Government Pleader is justified. We find that it is not the same officer who initiated the proceedings under section 29A(2) who levied the penalty. The Inspector of the department initiated proceedings, but the levy of penalty was by the Intelligence Officer. They were different persons. This part of the order of the Tribunal cannot be upheld. We find that it is not the same officer who initiated the proceedings under section 29A(2) who levied the penalty. The Inspector of the department initiated proceedings, but the levy of penalty was by the Intelligence Officer. They were different persons. This part of the order of the Tribunal cannot be upheld. The Appellate Tribunal was in error in holding that the officer who recorded the statement and the officer who imposed the penalty is one and the same person and so the imposition of penalty under section 29A(4) is unauthorised. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is infirm on this score. The order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the said order should share the same fate. We are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal on that aspect. 4. On the merits we find that a large volume of evidence, oral and documentary, was let in before the Appellate Tribunal as additional evidence. The Appellate Tribunal admitted the additional evidence as necessary for the purpose of pronouncing a satisfactory order in the appeal. They believed the driver who gave evidence before them and held that the transport was with proper documents. The Appellate Tribunal also held that the Intelligence Officer did not make proper enquiries. On facts it was held that the Revenue failed to establish beyond doubt that there is an attempt to evade tax due to the Kerala State Government on the part of the driver of the vehicle in this case. The plea of the driver was that there was no transport of goods unauthorisedly in Kerala State. This plea was accepted. Accepting this plea on the merits the Tribunal held that imposition of penalty is unauthorised and directed the Intelligence Officer to refund the amount collected as penalty to the driver. The appeal filed by the driver was allowed. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed. We are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeal filed by the State, on the ground of incompetency of the officer to levy the penalty, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty and in ordering the refund on the merits. The common order of the Appellate Tribunal is confirmed in so far as it has held that the driver of the lorry is entitled to refund and in ordering the refund. The revisions are disposed of as above.