Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. Desirable it is, to pen down a common order, inasmuch as the issue falling for consideration in all these actions is one and the same pertaining to the same assessee relatable to the three assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89 under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "CST Act"). 2. The assessee-dealers, Tvl. Uni Rubber and Footwear (Private) Limited, having their place of business at No. 84, Sipcot, Hosur, is coming within the jurisdiction of Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur. The assessee-dealers' head office, it is said, is located at Hosur, besides having a branch office at Bangalore. The assessee-dealers, it appears, effects sale of their goods inter-State, besides effecting stock transfer for open market sale to their branch at Bangalore. During the relevant assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89, it appears, the assessee-dealers camouflaged their accounts by creating records in such a way that the inter-State sales effected by them in a quantified sum relatable to the said assessment years appear as if they are only stock transfers effected to their branch at Bangalore for open market sale. This sort of manipulation of accounts, they were indulging in, was found out during certain inspections made by the officials of the department. The seized documents during the course of inspection mainly consisted of certain slips and bills for payment of transport charges. Those documents indicated direct despatch of goods from the head office at Hosur to Vijayawada and other places outside the territory of Tamil Nadu and this sort of transactions was not getting revealed in their accounts and there was a suppression of sales turnover thereto. The suppressions were duly taken into account by the assessing officer, who subjected such inter-State transactions to tax and the appropriate levy of ten per cent, in the absence of production of "C" forms, besides mulcting upon the assessee-dealers the imposition of penalty at 150 per cent in a quantified sum in respect of each of those said three assessment orders. 3. The aggrieved assessee-dealers preferred appeals C.S.T. Nos. 67 of 1989, 47 of 1990 and 113 of 1990 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem (for short "the A.A.C."). 4. The said A.A.C. by a common order in C.S.T. Nos. 3. The aggrieved assessee-dealers preferred appeals C.S.T. Nos. 67 of 1989, 47 of 1990 and 113 of 1990 before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem (for short "the A.A.C."). 4. The said A.A.C. by a common order in C.S.T. Nos. 47 and 113 of 1990, confirmed the assessment relatable to imposition of tax at the appropriate rate pertaining to the suppressed turnover, besides reducing the penalty to the extent of 75 per cent in respect of the assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89. 5. The said A.A.C. in C.S.T. No. 67 of 1989, though confirmed the assessment relatable to the suppressed turnover, however, deleted the penalty in its entirety in respect of the assessment year 1987-88. 6. The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed appeals in C.T.A. Nos. 115 and 116 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore-18 (for short "the Tribunal") relatable to assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89. The Tribunal decided the case in favour of the department, but however reduced the penalty from 75 per cent to 50 per cent, giving rise to the present actions-T.C.(R) Nos. 152 and 153 of 1995. 7. The Revenue aggrieved by the above said reduction of the penalty filed T.C. (R) Nos. 178 and 179 of 1995 relatable to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89. 8. The aggrieved assessee-dealers filed C.T.A. No. 211 of 1990 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal in its entirety, that is to say relating to the assessment for the year 1987-88. The Revenue aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, filed the present action-T.C. (R) No. 158 of 1995. 9. Arguments of Mrs. Aparna Nandakumar, learned counsel representing Mr. R. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Mr. K. Ravi Raja Pandian, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the Revenue were heard. 10. The modus operandi adopted by the assessee-dealers as respects suppression of inter-State sales for all the assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89 is one and the same. The modus operandi consists of suppression of inter-State sales in the accounts. Such suppression was found during the course of inspection by recovery of certain documents, in the shape of slips and bills, for transport charges effected to lorry transport for the movement of the goods from the State of Tamil Nadu to other States. The sale suppression effected was not at all getting revealed in the accounts. Such suppression was found during the course of inspection by recovery of certain documents, in the shape of slips and bills, for transport charges effected to lorry transport for the movement of the goods from the State of Tamil Nadu to other States. The sale suppression effected was not at all getting revealed in the accounts. No explanation forthcame from the assessee-dealers except stating that errors crept into the bills for the payment of transport charges to transport operators. What they would say is that the bills had been prepared mistakenly when the despatch had been effected from Hosur to Vijayawada instead of from Hosur to Bangalore. By so contending, they would say that but for the mistakes so crept into the transport bills, all those despatches would have been normally construed as transfers effected to their Hosur branch for open market sale. This sort of an explanation, trotted out by the assessee-dealers, was not at all accepted by the tax authorities inclusive of the Tribunal relatable to assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89. But, unfortunately, as respects the assessment year 1987-88, the Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assessee-dealers and afforded relief to them, in the sense of setting aside the assessment. When we verified the records, we are able to find that the Presiding Deity of the Tribunal, which passed contrary orders on the same set of facts, are different individuals. 11. The Tribunal is the ultimate authority on finding of facts. Normally, a finding rendered by the Tribunal on facts is not at all interfered with, when there are base materials for rendering such finding of fact. Only when there is" a perverse appreciation of such base material or material facts by the Tribunal, this Court, a revisional authority, would tend to interfere and not otherwise. The base materials or material facts available in the instant cases, as already adverted to, are one and the same. But, as stated above, conflicting orders resulted. The orders passed by the Presiding Deity in T.A. Nos. 115 and 116 of 1992 relatable to assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 are in favour of the Revenue, while the order passed by the Presiding Deity in T.A. No. 211 of 1990 is in favour of the assessee. 12. We have perused the order of the two different and distinct authorities, on the same base materials. 115 and 116 of 1992 relatable to assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 are in favour of the Revenue, while the order passed by the Presiding Deity in T.A. No. 211 of 1990 is in favour of the assessee. 12. We have perused the order of the two different and distinct authorities, on the same base materials. On such perusal, we are able to come to the conclusion that the Presiding Deity, which decided the case in favour of the assessee in C.T.A. No. 211 of 1990, appreciated the base materials in such a perverse way as to choke the conscience of the court, calling for interference. The reason is rather obvious. Commission of a mistake or error in the preparation of bills for the transport of goods may occur on a sporadic occasion either by inadvertence or by way of slip. But such an error cannot at all happen continuously for so many years. The continuity of such error happening for so many years in the preparation of transport bills cannot be any one other than one of manipulation to suppress the real nature of the transaction. This aspect of the matter had not been taken into account fay the Presiding Deity, which decided the case in C.T.A. No, 211 of 1990. But, on the other hand, the Presiding Deity which decided the matters in C.T.A. Nos. 115 and 116 of 1992 had duly taken into account such aspect of the matter for consideration and that perhaps was the reason for the conflicting decisions being resulted between the two sets of authorities. In this view of the matter, we rather feel that the order passed by the Presiding Deity in C.T.A. No. 211 of 1990 cannot at all be allowed to stand and the same deserves to be set aside in respect of the assessment relatable to the assessment year 1987-88. 13. Corollary consequence to follow therefrom is that the common order passed by the Deity in C.T.A. Nos. 115 and 116 of 1992 as relatable to assessment for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 deserves to be confirmed. 14. We may now revert our attention as relatable to the imposition of penalty upon the assessee-dealers relatable to the three assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89. 115 and 116 of 1992 as relatable to assessment for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 deserves to be confirmed. 14. We may now revert our attention as relatable to the imposition of penalty upon the assessee-dealers relatable to the three assessment years 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89. In the cases on hand, while imposing penalty upon the assessee-dealers, the respective assessing officer has not correctly specified the relevant provisions under which the penalty had been imposed. From the factual matrix of the cases, we can legitimately infer that if at all the assessee-dealers are to be mulcted with penalty, that can be done only for refraction or violation of clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12, attractable to penalty under clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 12 of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (for short "TNGST Act") for furnishing of incorrect or incomplete return. So far as the violation of clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12 is concerned, the maximum penalty imposable under clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of section 12 is to the extent of 150 per cent. of course, the assessing officer imposed the maximum extent of penalty of 150 per cent upon the assessee-dealers relatable to the assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 and the same had been reduced to 75 per cent by A.A.C. and further reduced to 50 per cent by the Tribunal, which is the minimum penalty imposable thereto. Since the assessee-dealers manipulated and created records with a view to suppress actual sales turnover, we do not see any reason to interfere with the minimum penalty imposed upon the assessee-dealers for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89. Further, we are not inclined to restore the original penalty of 150 per cent, as had been imposed upon the assessee-dealer by the assessing officer, inasmuch as the assessee-dealers had been facing the agony of litigation before different forums for well over a decade. 15. In fine, T.C. (R) Nos. 152, 153, 178 and 179 of 1995 are dismissed. T.C. (R) No. 158 of 1995 is allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal in C.T.A. No. 211 of 1990 and ordering restoration of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem confirming the order of assessing officer as relatable to assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 alone. 152, 153, 178 and 179 of 1995 are dismissed. T.C. (R) No. 158 of 1995 is allowed by setting aside the order of the Tribunal in C.T.A. No. 211 of 1990 and ordering restoration of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Salem confirming the order of assessing officer as relatable to assessment for the assessment year 1987-88 alone. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, on the facts and in the circumstances of these actions. T.C.(R) Nos. 152, 153, 178 and 179 of 1995 dismissed. T.C.(R) No. 158 of 1995 allowed.