Judgment :- Mohan kumar, J. The above M.F.A. was disposed of by us in the absebce of the counsel for the appellant. After pronouncement of the order, the counsel for appellant appeared and prayed that the matter may be posted for being “spoken to” to clarify and highlight certain points. We permitted him to do so. Accordingly it is posted today for hearing. 2. We heard learned counsel in detail as also Government Pleader. The factual basis of the case is that the original return was filed on 29-56-1982. It is alleged that the appellant reserved the right to file a revised return after ascertaining the tax due. Thereafter accordingly a revised return was filed on 10-6-1986. This was done admittedly before the assessment order was made, which was made only on 12-9-1986. It is stated by counsel for the appellant that the second return was accepted and assessment was completed after dealing with certain exemptions claimed by the appellant. Subsequent thereto after the matter became final proceedings were initiated by the department under Sec.45(A) C & D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, to impose penalty for the alleged non-filing of the true and correct return. Penalty was imposed despite objection. The appellant filed the quantum of penalty to just half of the amount already imposed by the assessing authority, which is equivalent to the tax assessed. Dissatisfied with the modified order the second revision was filed by the appellant before te Board of Revenue. This revision was dismissed and the order is the subject matter of this appeal before this court. 3. We have heard Mr.E.R.Venkiteswaran, learned counsel for the appellant, as also Mr. Georgekutty Mathew, counsel for the Revenue. 4. We notice from Rule 18 of the K.G.S.T Rules that the statutory duty is cast on the assesse to file annual return before the first day of May every year. But at the same time Sub Rule (2A) and (2B) reads as under: “(2A) Any dealer who subsequently finds that any mistake has crept in the return filed under sub-rule (1), may file a revised return in form No. 9, within six months from the date fixed for filing return under sub-rule (1), or along with the certificate of audit and statement required to be filed under sub-rule (14B) of rule 32, as the case may be. (2B). (2B). Any dealer, the assessment in respect of whom is treated as completed in accordance with the provisions of section 18 may, if he finds that any mistake has crept in the return filed for any of the years to which the section applies, file a revised return in Form No. 9 on or before the 30th June, 1998, and pay tax in the manner specified in sub-rule (3).” It is clearly disclosed that the rule itself contemplates the filing of a revised return. As far as Rule 2A is concerned, such revision be filed within six months from the date fixed for filing return and in a case where assessment is in respect of Rule 2B, the assessee may file a revised return in Form No. 9 on or before the 30th June, 1998. But Rule 2B may not apply to this case. Nevertheless all that is necessary is to advert to the circumstances that Rule 18 postulates filing of return before the first day of every year and that the said rule itself contemplates a relaxation of six months from the date fixed for filing a revised return. That means the rule fixing the first day of every year for filing of return is not mandatory condition. To attract the provisions of Section 45 A it is essential that the assessee should have failed to keep true and complete accounts. Merely for the reason that he had initially filed an incorrect return or failed to submit a return as required under the provisions of law, it does not mean S. 45A stands attracted. There should be a deliberate and intentional act on the part of the assessee to file an untrue return and thus attempted to mislead the department. They should thus have been misled to act on such an untrue return whereby the assessee had derived any benefit. All that has happened is that the assessee made a return which he himself has admitted to be untrue. When he himself admits his return is not true or correct clearly it means that he never entertained an intention to mislead the department or gain any illegal benefit. In this case, even before the Department had occation to act. We are not satisfied that the order imposing penalty is sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. M.F.A. is allowed. No cost.