JUDGMENT P. SHANMUGAM, J. – Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. He has challenged the penalty imposed under section 45A of the Act which was confirmed by the concurrent findings of the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the assessment is not complete, it is not open to the Sales Tax Officers to impose the penalty. Section 45A of the Act enables the authority to impose penalty if he has failed to keep true and complete records. As a matter of fact, a similar objection raised was overruled by this Court in Jyothi Laboratories v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (I.T.C.) [1994] 94 STC 199; (1993) 1 KTR 500, where this Court held that section 45A is not dependent on the findings made in the course of the assessment. On the other hand, it postulates an independent proceedings either by assessing authority or by any officer not below the rank of Sales Tax Officer, with a separate hierarchy of remedies for getting redress under sub-sections (3) and (5) thereof. 3. It is also laid down by this Court in B. Radhamani Amma v. Assistant Commissioner (1995) 3 KTR 64 (Ker), that when huge amount was found suppressed, writ will not issue against the concurrent findings of the authorities below under section 45A of the Act. The court held that when the huge amount of turnover suppressed and the consistent conduct of the petitioner for over two years successively as also the delay in filing the revised return is sufficient to establish that the petitioner's conduct was not bona fide and that the conduct is one which amounts action under section 45A. In this case, the authorities below have concurrently found that there is suppression and other irregularities noted by them. It is seen from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that on inspection, the Intelligence Officer recovered voluminous incriminating business records and they have verified with reference to the books of accounts and the recovered documents and they found certain discrepancies. Based on the irregularities, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for initiating penal action and the objection was considered and overruled by the officers below. Based on the irregularities, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for initiating penal action and the objection was considered and overruled by the officers below. In my view, both the Intelligence Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner have gone into the minute details of the irregularities committed by the petitioner after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity and concluded that the action of the petitioner in suppressing and committing irregularities is so grave warranting penalty. 4. The revisional authority considered the points raised by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the order and found that no reason has been adduced as to why the documents were not furnished at a later stage before March 24, 1994 when the inspection took place on April 19, 1994. Besides, the shortage of gold ornaments detected during the inspection comes to 56.295 gms. whereas unaccounted sale of gold ornaments as per seized account books comes to 4,941.110 gms. This is further corroborated by unaccounted purchase of 5,259.075 gms. as per the seized records. In addition to this, sales suppression amounting to Rs. 2,18,885.90 and purchase suppression amounting to Rs. 2,974.20 detected from the recovered slips. According to the Board of Revenue, these are all clear irregularities which have been taken as suppression with a clear intention of tax evasion and the same has been given full weightage for 1993-94. For the year 1992-93, there was unaccounted purchase to the tune of Rs. 9,54,632 and Rs. 7,83,854 have been unearthed from the incriminating records. All these findings of fact are clearly voluminous and as held in Radhamani Amma's case (1995) 3 KTR 64, this Court would not be justified in interfering with these findings of fact which brought out the ingredients of section 45A of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any infirmities warranting interference at this stage under article 226 of the Constitution. On the contrary, I find that both the first two authorities have analysed the issues elaborately, including the contentions raised by the petitioner and found against. For instance, Deputy Commissioner on the contention that the unaccounted sales and purchases are referable to ornaments received for repair and released after repair, it is found as follows : "The learned authorised representative has failed to point out at least one of the transactions as contended with the support of the relevant records. For instance, Deputy Commissioner on the contention that the unaccounted sales and purchases are referable to ornaments received for repair and released after repair, it is found as follows : "The learned authorised representative has failed to point out at least one of the transactions as contended with the support of the relevant records. It appears to me as a general contention." The petitioner had repeated the attempt hereto. Nothing specific is pointed out excepting addressing general argument. 5. On the contrary, the case of the petitioner before the first authority was that they were unaware of keeping true and correct accounts due to lack of a proper advice which was rightly rejected. The dealer had admitted that their usual books of account were not complete. The finding of the officer is as follows : "She had deliberately and intentionally evaded payment of tax legitimately due to the Government and thereby committed the offence. The action in the instant case is objectionable and contumacious and this is a fit case warranting maximum penalty." Turnover suppressed during 1992-93 is Rs. 17,38,490 and the turnover suppressed during 1993-94 is Rs. 45,25,430. The finding and conclusions were cogently considered and confirmed by the next two authorities. 6. A division Bench of this Court in P. D. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax [1992] 85 STC 337 considered the scope of section 45A of the Act. While upholding the penalty provision, the division Bench held that all that is necessary is that there should be some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed and the inference of one fact from proof of another fact, shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary. The power can be exercised only on the basis of materials and on valid and reasonable grounds and not the mere ipse dixit of the officer. This principle has been kept in view and applied in this case. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the orders. Original petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.