Judgment :- K. A. SWAMI, C.J. These two tax revision cases are filed against the common order dated October 14, 1993, by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, (Additional Bench), Madurai, in Madurai Tribunal Appeal Nos. 236 and 237 of 1990. The only contention urged before us is that the penalty levied under section16(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that penalty under section16(2) of the Act can be levied only when it is found that the escape from assessment was due to wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover by the dealer; that in the case on hand, no doubt the turnover in question was not included in the original returns submitted; but as soon as it was realised by the dealer that the agency turnover in question also ought to have been included in the return filed, for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 the dealer immediately filed the supplemental return and also paid tax due thereon and this was done before the notice issued for the escaped assessment under section16 of the Act. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that there is no element of wilful non-disclosure of assessable turnover. If these were the only facts, probably, we would have not felt any difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. However, the facts as indicated by the Tribunal, are slightly different. It may be pointed out that after the assessment order was passed as per the returns submitted by the dealer, on the basis of extracts of despatches of vanaspathy and refined oil to the assessee for sale on consignment basis by others, the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Madurai, on instructions from the Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement), Madras in R.O.C. No. 13873/88-A.3 dated January 5, 1989, made discreet enquiries at Madurai and Virudhunagar about the agency transactions of the dealer in question and also verified the assessment files and found that the assessee had suppressed the sales relating to vanaspathy and refined oil and called for the account books of the assessee. After the account books were called for, the assessee filed the supplemental return and paid the tax thereon. After the account books were called for, the assessee filed the supplemental return and paid the tax thereon. Therefore, the Tribunal, on a detailed consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, has held as follows : "So, the contention of the appellants that Mr. S. Dhilifan was under the impression that agency turnover need not be included in the returns cannot be accepted and it is clear that the appellants were very well aware of the liability to tax on the sales effected on behalf of the principals in other States. Thus, it is clear that the appellants, conscious of the penal provision of section 16(2) filed statements disclosing the turnover suppressed and made a show of it, so that they could escape the higher scale of penalty. It was not a return voluntarily filed, though an attempt was made to usher in a statement so as to gain an undue advantage in the matter of penalty leviable under section16(2) of the Act. Further, it is to be seen that in their letter dated February 6, 1989, addressed to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement), Madurai, it is stated by the appellants that : 'The business newly commenced was solely looked after by Mr. S. Dhilifan. While so at the time of check of books of accounts during the month of December, 1988, it was noticed that the agency business had not been included in the monthly returns filed by the firm.' If the omission was found by the appellants themselves in December, 1988, it is not known why the fact was not brought to the notice of the assessing officer immediately and why the appellants were waiting till the officers came to verity the agency transactions they had with the principals in other States. It is to be seen that no January 20, 1989, it was stated that the accounts relating to the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 were available with auditors. But on February 6, 1989, it was stated that the accounts were lost in transit. This is unbelievable and in our opinion they did not want to produce the accounts before the Enforcement Wing Officers for obvious reasons. The agency transactions, in our opinion, would not have been entered even in the regular accounts maintained by the appellants. But on February 6, 1989, it was stated that the accounts were lost in transit. This is unbelievable and in our opinion they did not want to produce the accounts before the Enforcement Wing Officers for obvious reasons. The agency transactions, in our opinion, would not have been entered even in the regular accounts maintained by the appellants. Otherwise, the agency transactions done by the appellant for so many millions of rupees would not have been escaped the vigilant eyes of the assessing officer when the checked the accounts for final assessment. Having regard to the fact that there were no accounts for verification and the statements disclosing the agency sales transactions were submitted after a long gap from the date of original assessment and at a time when the suppression of sales was detected by the Enforcement Wing Officers, we are of the view that there was no voluntary disclosure of taxable turnover by the appellants. But for the investigation done by the department, the turnover would not have come to light. The conduct of the appellants in not producing the regular accounts maintained before the Enforcement Wing Officers and the fact that they did not care to bring to the notice of the assessing officer the so-called omission of the agency transactions immediately after it was noticed and the filing of statements only after the suppression of sales was detected by the Enforcement Wing Officers and the fact that a portion of the agency sales done by them was duly reported in the returns filed by them all prompt us to hold that there was a deliberate and wilful attempt on the part of the appellants to evade the payment of tax on the sales effected for millions of rupees." The aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact based on valid evidence. Inference drawn by the Tribunal that there was wilful non-disclosure of agency transactions in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified. Consequently, levy of penalty is justified. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot at all be accepted. We see no reason to entertain these tax revision cases and the same is dismissed.