JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - I do not find any merit in this original petition. The assessee is a person who has consistently filed false returns for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84 for the purpose of assessment under the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963. For these two years she had filed returns on April 30, 1983 and April 30, 1984. In the first of these returns she had suppressed purchase turnover of copra to the tune of Rs. 9,93,942 and for the second year the amount not disclosed in the returns was Rs. 9,67,434.06. These amounts were admittedly due for payment of tax, but in view of the suppression of these amounts in the returns, the petitioner delayed payment of the tax admittedly due on this turnover, namely, Rs. 9,348.48 for the first year and Rs. 8,894 for the second year. The petitioner filed revised return for 1982-83 on September 5, 1986, almost 3 1/2 years after the original return was filed on April 30, 1983. For the second year she filed return only after the verification of the accounts commenced. In the circumstance the assessing authority took action under section 45A of the Act for filing untrue and incorrect returns. Petitioner was called upon to show cause. For the first year the petitioner's case was that her accounts were being written by one S. Stanu Iyer, a part-time accountant. Monthly returns were also prepared by him. She had placed reliance on him. The part-time accountant had taken the books for finalisation of the ledgers. He died subsequently. The books of accounts were then entrusted to another person and it was then the mistake was noted. So far as the second year was concerned, her case was that she was not aware of the figures in the monthly returns and she became aware of the actual figures only when the accounts were finalised. For these reasons, she prayed that the penalty proceedings may be dropped. 2. For the first year, the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 though the amount of penalty could be twice the mount evaded. For the second year the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 17,788. These orders imposing penalty are exhibits P1 and P2. Both these orders were taken up in revision. 2. For the first year, the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 though the amount of penalty could be twice the mount evaded. For the second year the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 17,788. These orders imposing penalty are exhibits P1 and P2. Both these orders were taken up in revision. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order relating to the year 1982-83 by the proceedings, exhibit P3, but reduced the penalty to Rs. 8,894 for the year 1983-84, by the order, exhibit P4. The second revision filed before the Board of Revenue stood dismissed by the order, exhibit P5. Petitioner challenges these orders. 3. The contention taken in that the petitioner acted bona fide and that she had not submitted any untrue returns wilfully. Her case is that it was her part-time accountant who died subsequently who let her down. But it is rather difficult to accept this contention, for, as seen from the impugned orders, even the monthly returns in form No. 9 did not truly reflect the accounts. Further, this is a case where the amounts suppressed were not small amounts, which could be attributed to some mistake in calculation, but huge amounts of over Rs. 9 lakhs. So far as the first year is concerned, petitioner filed the revised return only after 3 1/2 years on September 5, 1986 after the original return was filed as early as on April 30, 1983. For the second year, she filed the revised return only after the verification of the accounts commenced, evidently finding that this turnover could not be further suppressed. The question whether the petitioner acted bona fide in filing these admittedly untrue returns is essentially a question of fact, which has been considered by the authorities and found against. The huge amount of turnover suppressed, the consistent conduct of the petitioner for two years successively as also the delay in filing the revised returns is sufficient to establish that the petitioner's conduct was not bona fide, and that on the other hand her conduct was one which warranted action under section 45A of the Act. The three authorities have concurrently found against the assessee and I do not find any error justifying interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the question of penalty, the Deputy Commissioner has acted fairly in reducing the penalty for 1983-84 from Rs. 17,788 to Rs. The three authorities have concurrently found against the assessee and I do not find any error justifying interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. Regarding the question of penalty, the Deputy Commissioner has acted fairly in reducing the penalty for 1983-84 from Rs. 17,788 to Rs. 8,894. For the first year 1982-83 the penalty imposed was only Rs. 5,000. 4. I do not therefore find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The original petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.