Judgment :- The State is the petitioner herein. The Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited is the assessee. For the assessment year 1980-81, the assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 14, 026 under the Central Sales Tax Act. Under section 12(5)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, a similar penalty was levied to an extent of Rs. 14, 026. According to the assessing officer in respect of certain months, viz., May 1980, July 1980 to October 1980, December 1980, January 1981 and March 1981, the assessee delayed the submission of the monthly returns both under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act in form A-2 and under the Central Sales Tax Act in form I. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had remanded the matter to the assessing officer for calculating the delay with reference to the number of days and not with reference to the months as worked out by the assessing officer. 2. Aggrieved the State was in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal contending that the delay for part of a month should be computed as for a month and that there was an under levy of penalty in respect of that under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. 3. According to the assessee, the tax was paid and the return was accepted and there was no balance. It was further submitted that the amendment to the Act came into force only in December, 1979. The delay in filing the returns was very negligible. Since the regional manager was on tour, the returns could not be filed in time. The Tribunal pointed out that the delay in filing the monthly returns was very negligible. The turnover furnished by the assessee was accepted under the TNGST Act. Under the CST Act, the turnover has been determined lower than that returned by the assessee. Considering all these explanations given by the assessee, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act is not possible in the present case. Accordingly, the penalty was cancelled and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by this order, the State is in revision before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the levy of penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the TNGST Act is mandatory and automatic and the view of Tribunal is not acceptable. Accordingly, the penalty was cancelled and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by this order, the State is in revision before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the levy of penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the TNGST Act is mandatory and automatic and the view of Tribunal is not acceptable. It was further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the enhancement petition filed by the Revenue. It was further submitted that it is not open to the Tribunal to excuse the delay in filing the returns. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) the Tribunal failed to appreciate the scope of section 12(5)(ii) of the TNGST Act. Therefore, it was submitted, that the Tribunal ought to have confirmed the penalty levied both under the TNGST Act and CST Act. On the other hand none was present on behalf of the assessee. 5. We have heard the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and perused the records carefully. 6. There was delay in filing the monthly returns in respect of May 1980, July 1980 to October 1980, December 1980, January 1981 and March 1981. The number of days of delay in filing the returns is very negligible. According to the assessee, since the regional manager was not in town, there was delay in filing the monthly returns. It was submitted that except for the months of July and August, in all the other months, the returns have been filed within the month in which the returns were due and the returns were accepted by the department. It was also submitted that the turnover determined under the CST Act is lower than the turnover submitted by the assessee. Since the reason for the delay in filing the returns was beyond the control of the assessee, the delay in filing the returns was condoned. Similar questions came up for consideration in the case of the same assessee in T.C. Nos. 1386 and 1363 of 1984 wherein this Court accepted the reasons given by the assessee, and condoned the delay in filing the returns by adopting the same reasons. Considering the reasons given by the assessee in the present case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act is in order. Considering the reasons given by the assessee in the present case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalty under section 12(5)(ii) of the Act is in order. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 7. In the result, this revision is dismissed. No costs.