JUDGMENT A. S. VENKATACHALA MOORTHY, J. – Petitioner-firm is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Petitioner-firm has been carrying on business mainly in coconut oil. For the assessment year 1986-87 the petitioner filed annual return in form No. 8 for the purpose of assessment before the first respondent showing the total turnover as Rs. 2,35,28,132.42 and taxable turnover as Rs. 1,77,14,254.60. Subsequently the petitioner filed revised return in form No. 8 declaring a total turnover of Rs. 8,12,29,129.77 and Rs. 1,84,58,136.50 as taxable turnover. The Assistant Commissioner noticed a difference of Rs. 7,43,882 in the taxable turnover. On the basis that the petitioner filed untrue and incorrect return in the year 1986-87 the Assistant Commissioner, Kozhikode, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner under section 45A of the Act. 2. The point that is raised by the petitioner is that inasmuch as revised return in form No. 8 declaring total turnover as well as taxable turnover were submitted by him voluntarily well before the commencement of the assessment proceedings it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of suppressing anything before the sales tax authorities. It is the further case of the petitioner that some bona fide mistakes crept in while filing the return in form No. 8 for the first time. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also place reliance on the rulings of the apex Court reported as State of Madras v. Jayaraj Nadar & Sons [1971] 28 STC 700 and Vishnu Traders v. Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal [1990] 77 STC 10 (Raj). 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would draw attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit that has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. According to the learned Government Pleader the Assistant Commissioner noticed a difference of Rs. 7,43,882 in the taxable turnover and considering the fact that the petitioner filed untrue and incorrect return for the year 1986-87 the Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 and the same is as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the petitioner also filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and again second revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. However, all the authorities took same view and dismissed the claims made by the petitioner. 5,000 and the same is as per the provisions of the Act. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that the petitioner also filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and again second revision before the Member, Board of Revenue. However, all the authorities took same view and dismissed the claims made by the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader would submit that in these circumstances this Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of tile Constitution of India may not interfere and set aside the impugned orders. 4. As narrated above the petitioner first submitted a return in form No. 8 declaring the total taxable turnover. Thereafter petitioner again filed another revised return in form No. 8 suo motu long before the commencement of the assessment proceedings. Petitioner has also explained as to how the mistake crept in while filing the first return in form No. 8. Inasmuch as the petitioner placed the entire matter before the first respondent well before the commencement of the proceedings it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of suppressing anything or withholding the relevant materials from the notice of the sales tax authorities. On the other hand petitioner's filing voluntarily a revised return well before the commencement of the proceedings would only show that the claim of the petitioner that when it filed the return in form No. 8 for the first time some bona fide mistakes crept in must be true. 5. I carefully perused the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. I do not find any material in the counter-affidavit to show that the petitioner committed any act in the nature of violating the provisions of the Act which would attract the authorities to invoke section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. In this view of the matter this Court is inclined to allow the original petition. Accordingly the original petition is allowed. Order on C.M.P. No. 21493 of 1993 in O.P. No. 11832 of 1993-H dismissed. Petition allowed.