Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. The tax case revision is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras for the assessment year 1980-81. P. M. A. Ahamed Kabeer and Company is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the CST Act") at Vijayapuram. The assessee is a dealer in grams, paddy and rice. For the assessment year 1980-81 the assessee had reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 42, 76, 556.99 and Rs. 14, 32, 396.99 respectively. The assessee had handled grams both from registered and unregistered dealers and the assessee is liable to pay tax under the CST Act on such of the grams that have not suffered tax in the State of Tamil Nadu. Though the assessee reported the turnover as already stated, later on the assessee found that at the time of filing of its return for the assessment year 1980-81, an inadvertent error has crept in while making classification of the goods and the assessee has correctly brought the transaction during the course of assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. The assessing officer called for the accounts and checked the accounts and completed the assessment accordingly. While passing the order of assessment, the assessing officer noticed that the assessee had failed to disclose the sales of grams which have not suffered tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and according to the officer, the non-disclosure of the transaction in the return filed by the assessee, but found in the accounts would attract the penal provisions of section 9(2-A) of the CST Act read with section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sale Tax Act, 1959. Therefore the assessing officer, after considering objections of the assessee, levied a penalty for the submissions of incorrect return of a sum of Rs. 3, 065 equal to 50 per cent of the difference in the tax payable on the turnover disclosed in the return and that was disclosed as per the accounts. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Thanjavur, who upheld the levy of penalty on the ground that there was a violation of the Rules. 3. 3, 065 equal to 50 per cent of the difference in the tax payable on the turnover disclosed in the return and that was disclosed as per the accounts. 2. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Thanjavur, who upheld the levy of penalty on the ground that there was a violation of the Rules. 3. The assessee carried the matter further before the Tamil Nadu Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirming the levy of penalty. The Appellate Tribunal found that the assessee was maintaining his account on correct basis, but its omission to include the sales of green grams to the extent of Rs. 1, 53, 235.20 in the return was due to an error that has crept in at the time of furnishing the returns. The Appellate Tribunal also found that the assessee brought to the notice of the assessing authority the error that has crept in the filing of the return and found furhter that the assessee has co-operated with the assessing authority in finalising the assessment. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, held that the assessee, had not deliberately or wilfully suppressed the turnover and the omission to include the turnover in the return was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, and as soon as the mistake was realised the assessing had made good the mistake by bringing it to the notice of the assessing authority before the assessment was completed. The Appellate Tribunal in this view, cancelled the levy of penalty. The Revenue has filed this tax case revision against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. 4. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the petitioner that the question of mens rea is not relevant in the matter of imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 9(2-A) of the CST Act read with section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Silk Traders, Madras 1994 (94) STC 157 wherein this Court has held that deliberateness or willfulness or an element of suppression on the part of the assessee is not necessary for invoking the provisions of section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Learned Additional Government Pleader, therefore, submits that since means rea is not a relevant consideration, the order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that the omission to include the return must be deliberate before invoking the provisions of section 12(5)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is not sustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent strongly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Srinivasa Iyengar & Sons 1993 (89) STC 349 and Kalyani Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu (1984) 10 STL 151 and Bhavani Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 (94) STC 120 (App.) and contended that the assessee has filed the revised statement even before the assessing office detected the suppression in the return and the omission to include the turnover was bona fide. According to the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding that it was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee there was an omission to include a part of the turnover and the assessee has co-operated with the officer in finalising the assessment and therefore, submitted that the Tribunal has come to correct conclusion in cancelling the penalty. 6. We have carefully considered the rival arguments advanced by the parties. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is clear. The omission to include a part of the turnover in the sales of green gram was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee and the assessee brought to the notice of the assessing officer the error that has crept in the original return filed and further the assessee co-operated with the assessing authority in finalising the assessment. It is clear that the accounts maintained by the assessee exhibited the sales of green grams. But, in the return filed by the assessee, the portion of the sale of the green grams was not disclosed. As soon as the assessee realised its mistake, it brought to the attention of the assessing authority about sales of green grams which are taxable under the provision of the CST Act. But, in the return filed by the assessee, the portion of the sale of the green grams was not disclosed. As soon as the assessee realised its mistake, it brought to the attention of the assessing authority about sales of green grams which are taxable under the provision of the CST Act. The assessee voluntarily and before any notice by the assessing office brought to the notice of the assessing officer the fact that there was omission to include the turnover of sales of green grams and filed necessary statements before the assessing officer before the completion of the assessment. The readiness with which the assessee brought to the notice of the assessing officer the error that has crept in the return clearly discloses that it was due to the bona fide mistake committed by the assessee in not discloses the turnover on the sales of green grams in the return filed. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the assessee filed the statement after the assessing officer found out the suppression of the turnover in the returns. One important aspects is that the assessee purchased the green grams from both registered and unregistered dealers and in making the classification of the goods at the time of finalising the returns an inadvertent error has crept in resulting in non-disclosure of the said transaction in the return. The omission to include the turnover was held to be bona fide and as soon as the assessee realised its mistake, it made good the mistake by bringing the same to the notice of the assessing officer and the assessment was also done on that basis. 7. Let us now consider the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties. In Kalyani Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu (1984) 10 STL 151, this Court held that where an assessee has filed a return which was incomplete or incorrect, but, however, before finalising the assessment when the assessee has realised the mistake, it is open to the assessee to rectify the mistake by furnishing the correct turnover. In Kalyani Agencies v. State of Tamil Nadu (1984) 10 STL 151, this Court held that where an assessee has filed a return which was incomplete or incorrect, but, however, before finalising the assessment when the assessee has realised the mistake, it is open to the assessee to rectify the mistake by furnishing the correct turnover. In State of Tamil Nadu v. P. S. Srinivasa Iyengar & Sons 1993 (89) STC 349 , this Court has taken the view that where the assessee has furnished a statement before the assessing authority pointing out the omission made in the return, the assessee's statement should be regarded as a revised return and no suppression can be inferred. Let us now consider the case cited by the learned Additional Government Pleader. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Silk Traders 1994 (94) STC 157 , the court held that the element of deliberations, willfulness or blameful conduct on the part of the assessee are not necessary for invoking the provisions of section12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. But, this Court has also cautioned where there was bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee, penalty cannot be levied due to bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that mistake has crept in the filing of the return. So in each case, the question has to be gone into whether the return was incorrect or incomplete and whether the assessee has filed the incomplete return with a view to postpone the tax legitimately due to the State or under bona fide belief that the return was in accordance with law. On the facts of the case, it is seen that the Appellate Tribunal has gone into the question and found that the omission to return the turnover of Rs. 1, 53, 235.20 was due to bona fide mistake on the part of the assessee. The finding that the error that crept in the original return was due to bona fide mistake is a finding of fact arrived at on the facts of the case. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in cancelling the levy of penalty. Accordingly, the tax case revision is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. No costs.