Judgment :- SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. Heard. The respondents in W.P. No. 7650 of 1983 are before us in this appeal challenging the order dated August 22, 1991 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7650 of 1983. The writ petition was filed to issue a writ of certiorari by calling for the records on the file of the first respondent relating to the records in TNGST No. 429348/79-80 dated July 7, 1983 and to quash the said order. We will refer to the parties in this order as arrayed in the writ petition. 2. The writ petitioners were oil millers dealing in groundnut; they were assessees on the file of the first respondent; for the assessment year 1979-80, the total taxable turnover of Rs. 22, 88, 661 was taken into consideration as against the reported turnover of Rs. 21, 83, 575. Petitioners had done decortication of groundnut during 1979-80 and they were assessed to tax on a purchase turnover of groundnut for Rs. 21, 73, 333 at 3 per cent single point besides on sales of multipoint goods for Rs. 15, 338 at 4 per cent and additional sales tax was also levied at 0.7 per cent. The petitioners, aggrieved by the same, took up the matter in appeal. The appellate authority held that the purchase turnover of groundnut was not liable to tax at the hands of the petitioner and that since the turnover of multipoint goods assessed was below taxable limit, assessment could not be made. Thereafter, the first respondent took further proceedings and passed the impugned order levying a penalty of Rs. 97, 795 under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 overruling the objections raised by the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the writ petition was filed. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioners and justifying their action of levying penalty having recourse to section 22(2) of the Act. The learned single Judge, after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition following the division Bench judgment of this Court dated July 30, 1991 in T.C. (Revision) No. 553 of 1982 (State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Mohamined Ibrahim Sahib) and batch. It is not disputed that at the relevant point of time, there was doubt about the liability to tax. It is not disputed that at the relevant point of time, there was doubt about the liability to tax. The writ petitioners, who had collected tax, had taken care to pass on their collections to the State. In other words, they did not retain the tax amount collected with them. Taking note of this fact, the learned single Judge considered the question as to whether the assessee could be penalised under section 22(2) of the Act and allowed the writ petition in the light of the division Bench aforementioned. 4. Learned Government Advocate, before us, reiterated in his arguments the same position which was put forward before the learned single Judge. In the division Bench judgment aforementioned, it is clearly stated that depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, it is a matter for the discretion of the assessing authority to determine whether the penalty provisions under section 22(2) of the Act are attracted in a case even where collections have been made in violation of section 22(1) of the Act and that the imposition of penalty is not automatic. The learned single Judge found on facts of the case that the first respondent had not exercised its statutory discretion as a quasi-judicial authority in a judicious and proper manner. In our view, the learned single Judge was right in that regard. When the petitioners passed on the tax collected to the respondents, that too in a situation when collection of tax was doubtful, it cannot be said that the first respondent exercised its statutory discretion in a judicious and proper manner. 5. In this view, no fault can be found with the order of the learned single Judge. Finding no fault or good ground to interfere with the order under appeal, we dismiss the writ appeal, but, with no order as to costs. Writ appeal dismissed.