Judgment :- ABDUL HADI, J. This tax case appeal by the assessee only relates to a small sum of Rs. 503 levied as penalty by the Joint Commissioner under section12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, confirming the order of the assessment officer and setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner which cancelled the said penalty levied. 2. While the taxable turnover of the assessee in the assessment year in question, namely 1981-82 is more than Rs. 36, 00, 000, the assessee omitted to disclose a small turnover of Rs. 4, 189.23 in the monthly return submitted by him in relation to the month of February, 1982. Admittedly the sale in relation to the said sum of Rs. 4, 189.23 took place on the last day of January which was a Sunday (a holiday). Though the turnover we accounted in the books of account, in February, while submitting the return in relation to February turnover, the accountant concerned had taken note of the sale bills of February and not the abovesaid sale which took place on January 31, 1982 and recorded in February in the account book. Thus, according to the assessee, it was a bona fide omission and so, no penalty could be levied. This plea was accepted by the Appellate Commissioner and in his order, he stated as follows : "The omissions in the return were verified by the departmental representative. The amount relates only to the solitary sale effected on the last day of January which happened to be a Sunday. The dealers should however have intimated this turnover along with the February turnover while furnishing the turnover for February. This has not been done presumably the turnover was arrived at from the sale bills instead of from the sales account. Thus I find that the omission is only a clerical mistake. There is no wilfulness or deliberateness in omitting this turnover to be reported in the A2 return." * But the Joint Commissioner has not chosen to deal with this question whether the mistake was a clerical one or a wilful or deliberate one. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there was also no material at all to hold that the mistake was wilful or deliberate one. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there was also no material at all to hold that the mistake was wilful or deliberate one. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Silk Traders where it was held thus : "........ While the element of deliberateness, wilfulness or a blameworthy conduct on the part of the assessee may not be necessary for invoking section12(5) of the Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the bona fides of the assessee have to be gone into before imposing penalty." * But this aspect has not been considered at all by the Joint Commissioner. Further taking into account the huge taxable turnover of the assessee, one could easily infer that the abovesaid omission with reference to a small turnover of Rs. 4, 189.23 could very well be a bona fide mistake. If that is so, necessarily this tax case appeal has to be allowed setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner. Accordingly, the order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the tax appeal is snowed. No costs.