JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. - Present revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated November 28, 2000 relating to the assessment year 1997-98 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the penalty levied under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act at Rs. 4,800. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was running sweetmeat shop. This is first year of business. The applicant was brought on record on the basis of the survey dated May 5, 1997. At the time of survey one Sri Pramesh Chandra Gupta was present. As per survey report he told that per day sale was Rs. 400 only. Immediately, after the survey, the applicant Sri Naresh Chandra Gupta filed reply dated June 10, 1997 stating therein that inadvertently in the survey report the name of Sri Pramesh Chandra Gupta has been mentioned as proprietor. It was also stated that the business was started one month back and per day sale was Rs. 300 and by mistake it was mentioned at Rs. 400. It was submitted that he himself manufactures goods and since the sale is less, he had not employed any person. Since Sri Pramesh Chandra Gupta, who was present at the time of survey had no concern with the business, he told about the affairs of the business in his own way, which is not acceptable to the applicant. For the assessment year, 1997-98, the applicant has been assessed to tax on the gross turnover of Rs. 1,60,000 vide order dated August 25, 1999. After the assessment order, show-cause notice was issued asking the applicant to appear on September 24, 1999. The applicant filed the reply to the show-cause notice stating therein that since the turnover was below the taxable limit, registration could not be applied. The assessing authority, however, has not accepted the plea of the applicant and vide order dated September 30, 1999 levied the penalty at Rs. 4,800 under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act. Penalty order has been confirmed in first appeal and by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 1997-98 is first year of business. The applicant was never assessed to tax prior to 1997-98. He submitted that in the assessment year 1998-99 the applicant was declared non-taxable. Penalty order has been confirmed in first appeal and by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 1997-98 is first year of business. The applicant was never assessed to tax prior to 1997-98. He submitted that in the assessment year 1998-99 the applicant was declared non-taxable. The business was in very small-scale in the village and the total turnover was below the taxable limit. He submitted that at the time of survey dated May 5, 1997, the brother of the proprietor Sri Pramesh Chandra Gupta was present, who was not much aware about the business activity and immediately after the survey, the applicant filed the objection on June 10, 1997 disputing the fact mentioned in the survey report. He submitted that after the submission of the objection no action was taken by the assessing authority. The assessing authority neither directed the applicant to apply for the registration nor issued any notice for the provisional assessment and when in the year 1999 the final assessment order was passed estimating the total turnover above the taxable limit, penalty notice under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act was issued. He further submitted that under the bona fide belief the applicant could not apply for the registration and, therefore, the penalty is not justified. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the applicant was brought on record on the basis of the survey dated May 5, 1997 in which brother of the proprietor Sri Pramesh Chandra Gupta told that per day sale was Rs. 400 and in this way, the total turnover was above the taxable limit and the applicant ought to have applied for the registration. Since the applicant failed to apply for the registration on the basis of the survey dated May 5, 1997, the applicant was liable for penalty under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act, which has been rightly levied. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of the Tribunal and the authorities below and given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions. The assessment order for the assessment year 1997-98 dated August 25, 1999, which is annexure 2 to the revision petition reveals that the applicant had disclosed the sales at Rs. 49,946, which was enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000 by way of best judgment assessment. The assessment order for the assessment year 1997-98 dated August 25, 1999, which is annexure 2 to the revision petition reveals that the applicant had disclosed the sales at Rs. 49,946, which was enhanced to Rs. 1,60,000 by way of best judgment assessment. Immediately, after the survey dated May 5, 1997, the applicant filed objection on June 10, 1997 disputing the fact mentioned in the survey report. The applicant also submitted the monthly returns. After filing of the reply dated June 10, 1997, no action has been taken by the assessing authority. The assessing authority has not directed the applicant to apply for the registration and has not passed any provisional assessment order on the basis of the survey dated May 5, 1997 estimating the turnover above the taxable limit. Thus, on the facts of the present case, it appears that the applicant was under the bona fide belief that the contents of letter dated June 10, 1997 was accepted, therefore, he could not apply for the registration. The total disclosed turnover was below the taxable limit and merely because in the assessment order by way of best judgment assessment, turnover was estimated above the taxable limit, it cannot be said that the applicant was not under the bona fide belief. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant was under the bona fide belief in not applying for the registration, therefore, the penalty levied under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act is not justified. In the result, revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the penalty under section 15A(1)(g) of the Act is quashed.