Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. The State is the petitioner. The assessee is Sapt Textile Products (India) Limited, Coimbatore. 2. While accepting the turnover as per the book it was noticed that the assessee has not reported the textile turnover of Rs. 68, 633 in the return filed. The assessee had claimed exemption on entire turnover. Therefore, it was proposed to levy penalty at 50 per cent. under section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act). There was also delay in filing the monthly returns, as stated in the order of the assessing officer. Therefore, penalty was proposed to be levied 50 per cent. under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. 3. The assessee in so far as the delay in filing the returns is concerned, it was stated that the delay was due to the fact that there was agitation by the agriculturists in the State of Maharashtra, political bandh and strike by the Transport Department. Therefore, according to the assessee, there was some slight delay in the filing of the monthly returns. Therefore, no penalty is leviable under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. Regarding the levy of penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act, it was explained that they have filed return on November 24, 1981, which was accepted by the authority. Therefore, the assessing officer was not correct in levying the penalty ignoring the revised returns filed by the assessee before completing the assessment. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. Accordingly, he levied penalty of Rs. 4, 118 under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act and another penalty of Rs. 1, 372.65 was levied under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner accepted the explanation offered by the assessee and reduced penalty levied under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 119 and in so far as the penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) is concerned, the order of penalty was remitted back to the assessing authority directing him to fix the quantum of penalty at 2 per cent. for each month instead of 50 per cent. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Appellant Tribunal. 119 and in so far as the penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) is concerned, the order of penalty was remitted back to the assessing authority directing him to fix the quantum of penalty at 2 per cent. for each month instead of 50 per cent. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Appellant Tribunal. In so far as the penalty levied under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act is concerned, the assessee submitted before the Tribunal that the delay in filing the monthly returns was due to the fact that there was agitation by the agriculturists in Maharashtra State, State bandh and also there was strike in the Transport Department. Therefore, the returns could not be filed in time. This explanation was accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly penalty levied under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act was deleted. 6. So also in the matter of levying penalty under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act, the Tribunal accepted the fact that a revised returns was filed by the assessee before the assessing officer, before completing the assessment. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that in the matter this, no penalty is exigible under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, this penalty also was cancelled. 7. Aggrieved by this order, the State is in revision before this Court. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) who submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the penalties levied under section 12(5)(ii) and 12(5)(iii) of the Act. On the other hand none was present on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and perused the records carefully. 8. Penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act was levied since there was delay in filing the monthly returns. The assessee explained that there was agriculturists' agitation in Maharashtra and there was also bandh in the State during there levant point of time. It was also submitted that the Transport Department was on strike during the period. Hence, there was some delay in filing the monthly returns. This explanation was accepted by the Tribunal for deleting the penalty of Rs. 119. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay in filing the monthly returns, we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 119 levied under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. 9. This explanation was accepted by the Tribunal for deleting the penalty of Rs. 119. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee for the delay in filing the monthly returns, we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 119 levied under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act. 9. In so far as penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act is concerned, though in the original return the assessee has not stated about the cotton purchase inside the State and the cotton purchase outside the State but before completing the assessment, the assessee filed the revised return on November 24, 1981. This revised was not considered by the assessing officer. On appeal, the Appellant Assistant Commissioner remitted back this issued to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to levy penalty at 2 per cent. for each month instead 50 per cent. However, on appeal, the Appellant Tribunal pointed out that since the assessing officer failed to consider the revised return filed by the assessee, no penalty is exigible under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. Since the assessee filed revised return on November 24, 1981, before completing the assessment, rectifying the mistake occurred in the original return, penalty under by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty levied under section 12(5)(iii) of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs.