Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. The department is the petitioner herein. P. N. A. Ahamed Kabeer and Company is the assessee. The assessee is a dealer in grams, paddy, etc. The assessing officer checked the accounts and found that there was a difference of Rs. 6, 64, 164 between the turnover reported in the returns and that found in the accounts. It was due to non-disclosure of first sales of black gram for Rs. 434 and purchase value of grams of Rs. 6, 63, 730 sent for consignment sales in other States out of first purchase, taxable under section 7-A. For the non-disclosure of the turnover of Rs. 6, 63, 730 taxable under section 7-A the assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 13, 283. Aggrieved against the order of the assessing officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who confirmed the levy of penalty. As against the said order the assessee filed second appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal the department filed a deferment petition to defer the hearing of the appeal till the disposal of the tax case in T.C. No. 1414 of 1982 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Arun Emporium decided on October 9, 1991) but, the Tribunal declined to defer the appeal and passed orders. The Tribunal relying on the decision of its own in T.A. Nos. 1812, 1813 and 1814 of 1982 dated February 28, 1983 held that though there is no scope for estimation under section 7-A, penalty is not automatic. Relying on the decisions reported in (State of Tamil Nadu v. Kandaswami), (Thangiah Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu) and (Guduthur Bheemappa v. Commercial Tax Officer), the Tribunal held that there is no clear finding as to whether the assessee was aware that the turnover was liable to tax under section 7-A, when they filed the return, and the liability to pay tax arises only when the goods purchased had not suffered tax at earlier stage and sought to be sent for sales on consignment basis outside the State. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that in the absence of such a clear finding that the assessee was aware of the liability to pay the tax at the time of filing the return penalty cannot be levied for failure to include, the section 7-A turnover in the return. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that in the absence of such a clear finding that the assessee was aware of the liability to pay the tax at the time of filing the return penalty cannot be levied for failure to include, the section 7-A turnover in the return. The Tribunal also held that the non-inclusion of the turnover in this case will not attract penalty for another reason, i.e., rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules was amended requiring the inclusion of the purchase turnover taxable under section 7-A in the total turnover of the assessee only on April 16, 1981, in the assessment year 1981-82, and that the High Court in T.C. No. 362 of 1983, dated June 16, 1983 [Reported as State of Tamil Nadu v. V. P. S. Narayana Nadar and Co. upheld the order of the Tribunal, deleting the penalty for non-inclusion of the purchase turnover in the return for the assessment year 1980-81 holding that, since the prescribed return proceeding for inclusion of the purchse turnover under section 7-A came into force only on April 16, 1981, it will be enforceable only for the assessment year 1981-82, and therefore for non-inclusion of such turnover for the return for the assessment year 1980-81, no penalty can be levied. It is against this order the department is in revision before this Court. 2. We have heard the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) and the learned counsel appeared for the assessee. 3. The liability to be taxed under section 7-A does not arise immediately after the purchase is made but arises only when taxable goods are bought from one who is not an assessee and are disposed of otherwise than by way of sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trading. The assessee purchased grams from agriculturists. The liability to pay tax under section 7-A does not arise the moment the goods are sent for sale on consignment basis and it will arise only after the goods sent are sold. Therefore the liability to pay tax under section 7-A may not be known when the return is to be filed. Therefore it is not possible to include purchase turnover liable to be taxed under section 7-A in the return. Therefore it cannot be said that non-disclosure of purchase turnover is wilful. 4. We have already set out the facts in detail. Therefore it is not possible to include purchase turnover liable to be taxed under section 7-A in the return. Therefore it cannot be said that non-disclosure of purchase turnover is wilful. 4. We have already set out the facts in detail. We have also taken into consideration the arguments advanced on both sides which are similar to the arguments advanced before the Tribunal. Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules was amended requiring the inclusion of the purchase turnover in respect of the section 7-A in the total turnover of the assessee only on April 16, 1981, in the assessment year 1981-82. The assessment year under consideration is 1980-81. Therefore one cannot expect the assessee to disclose the purchase turnover in the return for the assessment year 1980-81. The decision relied on by the Tribunal would support the above view. Therefore the reasons given by the Tribunal for cancelling the penalty are well-founded. Hence the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the penalty under section12(5) of the Act for non-inclusion of section 7-A turnover in the return is in order. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 5. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs.