ORDER K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J. - The petitioner challenges the correctness of the order made in O.P. No. 1688 of 2003 dated January 30, 2004. The petitioner's place of business has been inspected by the Enforcement Wing officials on November 3, 1999. On the basis of the information gathered a D3 proposal was sent to the jurisdictional assessing officer. Based on the D3 proposal, the assessing officer by his pre-assessment notices dated May 3, 2002 and February 14, 2003 called upon the petitioner to file objections to the proposal to levy tax on the sale of REP licence for a sum of Rs. 9,29,531 at four per cent and also levy of penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short, "the TNGST Act") at 150 per cent. In response to the proposal to levy penalty, the petitioner by reply dated March 31, 2003 while expressing their financial position sent a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards tax liability and requested for waiver of penalty. After taking note of the objections, the assessment order has been passed. That order was put in issue before the Special Tribunal. On the Special Tribunal rejecting the original petition the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that in respect of tax liability the petitioner has no case. But however, the proposal and imposition of penalty under section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act is uncalled for and unwarranted and against the statutory provisions. He relied on the Explanation to section 12(3)(b) to the Act which provides that for the purpose of levy of penalty the tax assessed on the turnover representing additions to the turnover as per books made by the assessing authority without any reference to any special concealment of turnover from the accounts shall be deducted from the tax assessed on final assessment. The learned counsel amplifying the said provision submitted that as the sale consideration of the REP licence has been culled out from the books of account, the penalty cannot be levied. We heard the argument and perused the material on record. Originally, when the matter was taken up for orders, a strenuous contention has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessment order itself has not been served on the petitioner and thus he was prevented from filing statutory appeal. We heard the argument and perused the material on record. Originally, when the matter was taken up for orders, a strenuous contention has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessment order itself has not been served on the petitioner and thus he was prevented from filing statutory appeal. That aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal. On the basis of the submission made, this court directed the Government Pleader to place the entire assessment file before this court so as to satisfy ourselves whether the assessment order has been served on the petitioner or not. When the file has been placed before this court, it is manifestly made clear that the assessment order dated March 31, 2002 has been served on the petitioner on April 22, 2003 and the same has been received by affixing the seal of the company on the said date. Hence the contention of the counsel that the assessment order has not been served, cannot be accepted as it is against the facts. Certain documents have been annexed in the typed set of papers which has been relied on for the purpose of this case, particularly page No. 2 of the typed set of papers. The reply dated May 29, 2002 has been filed as if it is a reply to the pre-assessment notice dated May 3, 2002. On verification of the original file, no such reply is available. On the other hand a reply dated March 31, 2003 is only available in the letter head of the petitioner - Corporation which has been received by the department on March 31, 2003, in which the petitioner has only expressed their inability to pay the tax and enclosed a cheque for a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards the tax liability. It has also been verified by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as a true copy of the original. When the court posed the question whether the copy of the letter dated May 29, 2002 is available with him, the learned counsel fairly submitted that no copy is available with him. This sort of filing a document as a original document, created for the purpose of the case cannot be appreciated by this court and this attitude has been deprecated very seriously. This sort of filing a document as a original document, created for the purpose of the case cannot be appreciated by this court and this attitude has been deprecated very seriously. On merits, as seen from the files, the petitioner has not filed any returns much less A2 returns which is prescribed under the provisions of the Act, which has to be filed on or before 20th of every succeeding month along with the proof for payment of tax on the turnover stated in the returns. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the registration certificate has not been renewed by them and as such lapsed. When such being the factual position, there is no statutory compulsion on the part of the respondent to call for the books of account to verify the same and on the expiration of the period of registration certificate, the dealer has become an unregistered dealer and can be assessed as provided under the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, in this case two pre-assessment notices dated May 3, 2002 and February 14, 2003 has been served on the petitioner and the reply has also been given by the petitioner on the last date, i.e., on March 31, 2003. Considering the reply, the assessment has been made and penalty has been imposed for which the statutory provision empowers the assessing authority under section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as the materials are available in the books of account and if it is called for there is no necessity for levying penalty and any such levy would also be against the statutory provisions cannot also be countenanced on the simple ground that the statute provides the consequence for non-filing of the returns under section 12(3)(a) of the TNGST Act. In this case as already stated admittedly no returns has been filed for the relevant assessment year. In such circumstances as per clause (a) of section 12(3) of the TNGST Act, the one and only recourse is imposition of penalty. For the sake of clarification section 12(3)(a) is extracted below : "12(3). In this case as already stated admittedly no returns has been filed for the relevant assessment year. In such circumstances as per clause (a) of section 12(3) of the TNGST Act, the one and only recourse is imposition of penalty. For the sake of clarification section 12(3)(a) is extracted below : "12(3). In addition to the tax assessed under sub-section (1) or (2) the assessing authority shall, in the same order of assessment passed under sub-section (1) or (2) or by a separate order, direct the dealer to pay by way of penalty, a sum - (a) which shall be, in the case of failure to submit return, one hundred and fifty per cent of the tax assessed on final assessment." Though right from the pre-assessment notice till the imposition of penalty and the assessment order, the authority has quoted the penal provision under section 12(3)(b), the fact remains that the penalty can be levied only under section 12(3)(a) as the petitioner has not filed any returns. It is well-settled principle of law that mere quoting of wrong provision would not vitiate the proceedings. Hence we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned order. The petition therefore deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.