ORDER DR. VINEET KOTHARI J. - Heard learned counsels. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax Board dated April 3, 2006, whereby the Tax Board allowed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the penalty order under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 whereby the assessing authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 53,445 on the assessee. The goods (non-ferrous metal scrap) sold by the assessee to M/s. Balaji Trading Company, Shahdara, Delhi, were intercepted and checked by the assessing authority on April 16, 2004 and along with the goods, the sale bills No. 467 for Rs. 1,53,233.50 and No. 468 for Rs. 23,483.20 dated April 16, 2004 were produced by the driver for checking. The assessing authority found that since the said bills indicated that Rajasthan sales tax/Central sales tax was paid, whereas the consignee was of Delhi, he suspected the evasion of tax on the part of the assessee and also because no builty of any transporter was found with the said goods, he imposed the said penalty on the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the appeal of the assessee set aside the said penalty by his order dated October 11, 2004. The Revenue filed the second appeal before the Tax Board, which came to be allowed vide the impugned order dated April 3, 2006. Challenging the said order in the present revision petition, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the reply filed before the assessing authority, it was duly explained that the word "paid" in these two invoices was an inadvertent mistake and in fact, the goods were sold in the course of inter - State trade and commerce having CST liability and the assessee being a registered dealer, due CST was paid in accordance with the Rules and the assessee has since been assessed under the CST Act by the regular assessing authority vide the assessment order dated March 13, 2007, which he has placed along with an application filed in the present revision petition. The inter - State sales made by the assessee during the relevant period under the four invoices including the two invoices in question, have been duly assessed by the assessing authority as inter - State sales as per the assessment order dated March 13, 2007. The inter - State sales made by the assessee during the relevant period under the four invoices including the two invoices in question, have been duly assessed by the assessing authority as inter - State sales as per the assessment order dated March 13, 2007. He has further explained that absence of builty was on account of the fact that the goods were transported through a private truck and therefore, regular builty was not available at the time of transit of the said goods. He, therefore, submits relying on the decision of this court in the case of A.C.T.O. v. Yaswant & Company reported in [1994] 95 STC 374 that since the entries in the books of account of these inter - State sales made by the assessee was duly made and such books of account were duly produced before the assessing authority during the course of enquiry, there was no justification on the part of the assessing authority as well as the Tax Board to impose the penalty under section 78(5) of the Act. Learned counsel for the Revenue, on the opposite side, submits that there was an admission of guilt in the present case by the assessee as noted in the assessment order. A perusal of the assessment order indicates that the assessing authority has relied upon the averments made in the reply filed by the assessee before him during the course of enquiry. A further perusal of the said reply, which is placed on record as annexure 5, shows that there is no admission of guilt on the part of the assessee in the present case. The assessee has made his breast clean by submitting that the word "paid" was wrongly mentioned, whereas these sales were in the course of inter - State trade and commerce. The assessee has also explained the absence of a builty at the time of checking, in the said reply. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the Tax Board had erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding the levy of the penalty in the present case. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the Tax Board had erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding the levy of the penalty in the present case. Once, the assessee had owned up the transaction as a taxable sale in the course of inter - State trade and commerce and such transaction has duly been recorded in the books of account, the assessee was free to pay such CST to the Revenue in accordance with the relevant rules even later. As the subsequent developments indicate in the present case that not only the transaction was duly entered in the books of account but also the assessee filed the due returns under the RST and CST and already stand assessed by the assessing authority relying on his books of account and accepting the tax liability as declared by the assessee. In view of this and in the absence of any admission of guilt as contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue, this court is of the opinion that no penalty under section 78(5) of the Act could be imposed on the assessee. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tax Board is set aside. No order as to costs.