JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH, C.J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This T. R. C. raises a short question for consideration, whether penalty was rightly imposed on the assessee under section 29A (4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 3. The facts are that the assessee, engaged in the manufacture of generator sets in Tamil Nadu, sent a consignment of two generator sets to be installed at different places within the State of Kerala under a delivery note. It entered into a works contract inclusive of fabrication, supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the generator sets with the Telecom Department. The case of the assessee was that there was inter-State sale and, therefore, there was no tax liability under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and that being so, no inference could be drawn that there was an attempt to evade the tax. The Tribunal, on appeal, held that there was no inter-State sale and the records show that the assessee entered into agreement to execute works contract. To consider the question whether the assessee was liable to pay tax, the Tribunal, relying on a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Projects and Services Centre v. State of Tripura [1991] 82 STC 89, held as under : "The facts in the case now before us is almost similar to the facts of the case considered by the honourable High Court of Gauhati. If the above decision of the Gauhati High Court is applied in the appellant's case, it can only be concluded that the appellant is not liable to pay any tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and therefore it cannot be said that there has been an attempt to evade payment of tax. The Tribunal, however, relying on Bells Controls Ltd., Madras v. State of Kerala (T.R.C. No. 148 of 1991 dated January 13, 1992), held that in the instant case, penalty was rightly levied by the authority under section 29A (4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The only question for consideration is whether the ratio of the decision in Bells Controls Ltd., Madras was rightly applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The only question for consideration is whether the ratio of the decision in Bells Controls Ltd., Madras was rightly applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. In Bells Controls Ltd., consignments were intended for execution of works contract at FACT, Cochin Divn., at Ambalamedu and Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. M/s. Bells Controls Ltd., was a dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act and was registered under the Central Sales Tax Act. FACT in that case was confronted and then it was stated by the FACT that it had no knowledge of the consignments being made. From the ignorance of the FACT, an inference was drawn that but for the checking at the cheek-post, goods would have escaped tax. It is for that reason penalty under section 29A (4) was upheld by this Court in M/s. Bells Controls Ltd. 4. The facts in the instant case before us are entirely different. Generator sets were consigned from the State of Tamil Nadu to Kerala under form D giving the entire details of the consignment. Form D had been issued by the assessing authority. All the details regarding consignment were in the knowledge of the assessing authority. Instant is not the case in which any fact was withheld by the consignor. Consignee was fully aware of the consignment being made. The facts in the instant case and the case of Bells Controls Ltd., are entirely different and therefore, on the analogy of Bells Controls Ltd., no penalty could be imposed on the assessee herein. But for the decision in Bells Controls Ltd., the Tribunal would not have sustained the penalty. As already pointed out, the decision in Bells Controls Ltd., is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order to impose penalty under section 29A (4) is set aside. Petition allowed.