Judgment :- ABDUL HADI, J. This Tax Case No. 79 of 1989 is a tax case appeal by the assessee under section37 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The dealer/assessee is a jeweller and the relevant assessment year in this case is 1980-81. During the inspection on March 3, 1981, 22 slips were recovered. Further, a statement from the assessee dated June 18, 1981 was also recorded. According to the enforcement officers who recovered the abovesaid 22 slips and recorded the abovesaid statement, ten slips bearing Sl. Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 10 and 12 alone contained entries of unaccounted transactions. They also found discrepancy in the stock as on March 3, 1981 to the extent of 184.4 gms. of silver over and above the book stock of 12, 346.6 gms. and to an extent of 3.7 gms. of gold jewellery beyond the book stock of 851.6 gms. Based on the slips, the taxable turnover was worked out at Rs. 2, 16, 444 and on that, tax of Rs. 12, 842 and additional sales tax of Rs. 2, 910 together with penalty of Rs. 9, 632 were levied by the assessing authority after giving pre-assessment notice dated February 27, 1982 and getting reply dated June 16, 1982. 2. When the matter came up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ignored the abovesaid stock discrepancy as negligible and sustained the assessment based on slip Nos. 5 to 8 only, and reduced the penalty to Rs. 442. But however, the Joint Commissioner in his suo motu revision, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and resorted the order of the assessing officer. 3. In so far as the penalty is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that even in the above referred pre-assessment notice, there is no reference to penalty at all and hence the levy of penalty is unwarranted and to be deleted. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) after verifying the original assessment file, submits fairly that there was no reference to penalty at all in the pre-assessment notice and therefore levy of penalty could not be sustained. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) after verifying the original assessment file, submits fairly that there was no reference to penalty at all in the pre-assessment notice and therefore levy of penalty could not be sustained. Accordingly, we also hold, in view of the fact that there was no reference to the penalty in the pre-assessment notice, that the levy of penalty cannot be sustained, so to that extent, the Joint Commissioner's order has to be modified. 4. In so far as fixation of taxable turnover based on the above referred to ten slips, though learned counsel for the appellant sought to make some faint argument, we, after going through the above referred to ten slips and the above referred to statement of the assessee recorded on June 18, 1981 soon after the inspection, we are satisfied that there is no good reason for ourselves interfering in the matter. In fact, out of the abovesaid ten slips, namely, slip Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 10 and 12, learned counsel for the appellant himself submitted that he has no case with reference to slip Nos. 5 to 8. Even with reference to slip Nos. 1 and 2, no explanation has been given in the abovesaid statement recorded on June 18, 1981. Further, even with reference to almost all the abovesaid slips, the assessee only stated in his statement dated June 18, 1981 that the transactions therein could not be accounted. 5. We went through the assessee's statement dated June 18, 1981 as well as the reply dated June 16, 1982 to the pre-assessment notice dated February 27, 1982 and we do not see any reason to differ from the reasoning of the Joint Commissioner. Further, we also notice that for the pre-assessment notice dated February 27, 1982, a reply has been sent only on June 16, 1982. No doubt, the assessee initially wanted copies of the abovesaid slips recovered. But even after those copies were furnished, the assessee did not give reply immediately thereafter. At any rate, from the assessee's statement recorded on June 18, 1981, it is clear to us that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted at all with reference to any of those slips. Accordingly, only with reference to the abovesaid levy of penalty of Rs. 9, 632. We set aside the Joint Commissioner's order and confirm his order otherwise. Accordingly, only with reference to the abovesaid levy of penalty of Rs. 9, 632. We set aside the Joint Commissioner's order and confirm his order otherwise. The appeal is thus partly allowed. No costs.Appeal partly allowed.