Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. This tax case (revision) is directed against the order dated November 11, 1994 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Main Bench), Madras-104 (for short "the Tribunal") and made in T.A. No. 310 of 1993 relatable to the assessment year 1986-87 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act No. 74 of 1956 - for short "the CSTA"). 2. The assessee-dealers - Tvl. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., having their place of business at "Oil Bhavan", No. 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras-34, it is said, opted to pay tax by filing monthly returns. It appears that the assessee-dealers filed monthly returns during the assessment year 1986-87 for all the months within the prescribed statutory period, in the sense of filing the returns before the 20th of the succeeding month. But, it appears, that though they filed the return within the prescribed period, they have not filed proof of payment of tax, along with the returns filed relatable to three months during the said assessment year. They, however, it appears, belatedly effected payments of Rs. 5, 00, 000, Rs. 6, 00, 000 and Rs. 35, 190 respectively for the said three months. There was a delay of five months and 27 days in effecting payment of Rs. 5, 00, 000, 19 months and 27 days in effecting payment of Rs. 6, 06, 000 and 40 months and 7 days in effecting payment of Rs. 35, 190. 3. The assessing officer, namely, the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.), Central Assessment Circle IV, Madras imposed penalty upon the assessee-dealers under section 12(5)(ii) for refraction or violation of section 12(4)(ii) (as they stood then) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 1 of 1959 - for short "the TNGSTA") in a sum equal to two per cent of the tax payable for every month or part thereof during which the default in the submission of the return continued. The penalty so imposed amounts to Rs. 3, 26, 116. 4. The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed appeal in Appeal No. 13 of 1992 before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madras (South) Division, Madras-6, and he confirmed the penalty so imposed by projecting the rationale as below : "In the instant case, it is not denied that the appellant did not submit the monthly returns along with proof for, payment of tax due thereof. The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed appeal in Appeal No. 13 of 1992 before the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Madras (South) Division, Madras-6, and he confirmed the penalty so imposed by projecting the rationale as below : "In the instant case, it is not denied that the appellant did not submit the monthly returns along with proof for, payment of tax due thereof. Therefore, the assessing authority has rightly invoked section 12(5)(ii) of the TNGST Act, 1959, and levied penalty. In view of these facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the assessing authority. Accordingly, the appeal in respect of this issue fails and is dismissed." * 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee-dealer made a further appeal before the Tribunal, as stated above and the Tribunal, in rum also dismissed the appeal, giving rise to the present action - Tax Case (Revision) No. 622 of 1995. 6. From the pith and submission of Mr. N. Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the assessee-dealers and Mr. K. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), representing the Revenue, the one and only question that arises for consideration in this tax case (revision) is as to : Whether, the order of the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposing penalty upon the assessee-dealers under section 12(5)(ii) for refraction or violation of the provisions of section 12(4)(ii) (as they stood then) of the TNGSTA for failure to submit proof for payment of tax due along with three monthly returns filed during the assessment year 1986-87 is sustainable in law ? 7. There is no pale of controversy that the assessee-dealers opted to file monthly return for the assessment year 1986-87. It is also equally not in dispute that the assessee-dealers filed their monthly return during the assessment year within the period prescribed, in the sense of filing the said returns before the 20th of the succeeding month. The assessee-dealers, however, admittedly did not file proof of payment of tax due along with the monthly returns filed for three months during the assessment year. Yet another fact, about which there is no dispute is that they paid the tax after undue delay, as had been stated in the process of summation of facts of the case. 8. The assessee-dealers, however, admittedly did not file proof of payment of tax due along with the monthly returns filed for three months during the assessment year. Yet another fact, about which there is no dispute is that they paid the tax after undue delay, as had been stated in the process of summation of facts of the case. 8. It is incumbent upon the assessee-dealers to submit the prescribed return within such period, as may be prescribed, as per the salient provisions adumbrated under section 12(4)(ii), of the TNGSTA. Violation or refraction of clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 12 of the TNGSTA results in the imposition of penalty upon the assessee-dealers in the manner contemplated under clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 12 of the TNGSTA. According to the said clause, a penalty equal to two per cent of the tax payable for every month or part thereof during which the default in the submission of the return continued, subject to a maximum of fifty per cent of the tax is capable of being imposed upon the assessee-dealers. 9. Rule 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for short "the Rules") prescribes that the return for each month shall be submitted so as to reach the assessing authority on or before the 20th of the succeeding month. The said sub-rule further prescribes that along with the return, the assessee-dealer shall also submit proof of payment of tax for the full amount of tax or taxes payable under any of the relevant sections for the month to which the return relates after deducting therefrom the amount, if any claimed as refund due in the month under rule 23 of the Rules. 10. Rule 18(4-A) of the Rules prescribes that a dealer, who has opted for the method of assessment described in sub-rules (2) to (7) of the said rule shall, in addition to returns prescribed in sub-rules (I-A) and (2), submit to the assessing authority on or before the first day of May in every year a consolidated return in Form A-1 showing the actual total and taxable turnover in the preceding year and the amount by way of tax or taxes actually collected during that year. 11. 11. A conjoint reading of sub-rules (2) and (4-A) of rule 18 would make it abundantly clear that it is incumbent upon the assessee-dealers to file not only the monthly return within the prescribed period, in the sense of filing the return before the 20th of every succeeding month but also a consolidated return in form A-1 every year on or before the first day of May showing the actual total and taxable turnover in the preceding year and the amount by way of tax or taxes actually collected during that year. 12. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the assessee-dealers filed consolidated return in form A-1, as prescribed under rule 18 (4-A). The question for consideration is as to whether the assessee-dealers had filed the prescribed monthly return for three months during the relevant assessment year, as contemplated by rule 18(2) of the Rules. 13. As already stated, the assessee-dealers filed the monthly returns for the three months during the relevant assessment year before the targeted dates prescribed under rule 18(2) of the said Rules, in the sense of filing the returns for those three months on or before the 20th of the succeeding months. As already adverted to an admitted fact it is, that the assessee-dealers did not file proof of payment of tax for those three months, along with the returns so filed and they, as a matter of fact, also effected payment of tax due for those three months belatedly, as had been stated elsewhere in this order. 14. Clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 12 of the TNGSTA contemplates submission of "prescribed return". Sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Rules prescribes return, as contemplated by clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 12 of the TNGSTA. The return, as prescribed under sub-rule (2) of rule 18 is required to be filed before the 20th of the succeeding month. That apart, along with the return so filed, proof of payment of tax, as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 55 for the full amount of the tax or taxes payable under the relevant sections for the, months to which the return relates, after deducting therefrom the amount, if any, claimed as refund due in the month under rule 23. That apart, along with the return so filed, proof of payment of tax, as specified in sub-rule (1) of rule 55 for the full amount of the tax or taxes payable under the relevant sections for the, months to which the return relates, after deducting therefrom the amount, if any, claimed as refund due in the month under rule 23. To put it otherwise, in nutshell, the prescribed return, as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Rules must be filed, not only within the periods specified, therein, but also tax for the month collected ought to have been paid and on fulfilment of both the conditions only, a return, if filed, can be stated to have been complete. Otherwise, it will not tantamount to filing of a complete return at all. In this view of the matter, in as much as the assessee-dealers filed the monthly return without due proof of payment of taxes therefor for three months, during the relevant assessment year, it goes without saying that those returns filed cannot at all be construed, in the eye of law, as prescribed returns filed under sub-rule (2) of rule 18 of the Rules. We are therefore of the view that the assessee-dealers violated or refracted the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 12, which will attract penalty, under clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 12 of the TNGSTA. 15. Under clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 12 of the TNGSTA, as already indicated, penalty in a sum equal to two per cent of the tax payable for every month or part thereof, during which the default in the submission of the return continued, subject to a maximum of fifty per cent of the tax. 16. In the case on hand, only a minimum penalty of two per cent of the tax payable for every month or part thereof during which the default in the submission of the return continued had been imposed and therefore it is such imposition of penalty does not at all call for interference. This point is answered accordingly. 17. In fine, the tax case (revision) fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.