JUDGMENT K. K. SASIDHARAN, J. - This tax case revision is at the instance of the assessee, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated May 8, 2000 in T.A. No. 368 of 1999, whereby, the appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed, confirming the findings of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The following substantial question of law is raised in this tax case : "Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in their finding that the assessee failed to prove the conditions for claiming return of tax paid in respect of articles returned by the purchaser ?" The petitioner is an assessee on the file of the Commercial Tax Officer, Guindy Assessment Circle. In respect of the assessment year 1995-96, the assessee has reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 19,64,527 and Rs. 17,00,200, respectively. There was an inspection in the business premises of the assessee by the officials of the enforcement wing on January 5, 1996 and in the said inspection, it was found that the petitioner has effected sales of machinery as per invoice Nos. 382 and 383 for a sum of Rs. 10,31,000 and Rs. 1,14,000, respectively and the said turnover was not reported to the Department and as such, the said turnover was treated as suppression and the sales suppression was arrived at Rs. 12,42,500. Subsequent to the inspection, the assessee filed revised returns for the month of October, 1995 on January 19, 1996 and also paid the tax due thereon. Before the assessing officer, the assessee contended that there was no sale of machinery to Sri Poly Pipes as found in the invoice Nos. 382 and 383 dated October 19, 1995, on account of the rejection by the buyer and as such, the transaction has to be treated as "sales return" and consequently, the assessee was not liable to pay any tax. The said submission was not accepted by the assessing officer and accordingly, sales suppression of Rs. 12,42,500 was treated as part of the turnover and the same assessed at eight per cent. The assessing authority also levied penalty of Rs. 1,96,695 under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The order of assessment dated March 21, 1991 was taken up by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by way of statutory appeal. 12,42,500 was treated as part of the turnover and the same assessed at eight per cent. The assessing authority also levied penalty of Rs. 1,96,695 under section 12(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The order of assessment dated March 21, 1991 was taken up by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by way of statutory appeal. Before the appellate authority, the assessee produced xerox copy of the letter dated February 28, 1996 sent by Sri Poly Pipes, Vijayamangalam, Periyar District, addressed to the appellant, indicating the return of the goods sent to them under invoice Nos. 382 and 383 dated October 19, 1995. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also found from the letter dated September 11, 1995 of TIIC Ltd., Erode that they have given an undertaking to the appellant that they would make payment of Rs. 8,05,100 against the supply of machinery and equipment to Sri Poly Pipes. The said letter also indicated that TIIC have already forwarded three demand drafts taken by Sri Poly Pipes for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 against supply of goods covered by invoice Nos. 382 and 383 dated October 19, 1995. However, the assessee was not able to prove the return of goods by Sri Poly Pipes and as such, the explanation given by the assessee was not acceptable to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority also found that it was only after the inspection by the enforcement wing on January 5, 1996 that the assessee reported sales omission by way of a revised return and paid the tax. There was also no acceptable material produced before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to prove that the amount of Rs. 4,50,500 was returned to Sri Poly Pipes either directly or through TIIC. In short, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to a factual finding that the assessee had made records to appear as if the goods were returned and as such, was not entitled to the benefit of refund of tax. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 4,50,500 was returned to Sri Poly Pipes either directly or through TIIC. In short, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to a factual finding that the assessee had made records to appear as if the goods were returned and as such, was not entitled to the benefit of refund of tax. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was taken up before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that they have sold the machinery to Sri Poly Pipes on the strength of the commitment letter given by Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation for payment and as the assessee was not in a position to supply the entire machinery within the time stipulated, the buyer returned the product supplied by them and as such, the sales turnover of Rs. 4,50,000 assessed by the assessing authority was without any basis and prayed for return of tax paid by them, by setting aside the addition made by the assessing officer in the sales turnover of the assessee. The Tribunal analysed the whole facts and found that the sale did take place in the month of October, 1995 but however, the assessee failed to record sales in the accounts as well as in the returns filed before the assessing officer and only when the suppression was detected by the enforcement wing officials that the assessee came up with revised returns incorporating the sales so made in the month of October, 1995 and paid the amount. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal confirmed the assessment made by the assessing officer as confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. With respect to penalty, the Tribunal found that there were no materials to levy penalty at the maximum rate and accordingly, the penalty was levied on the difference of tax paid as per return of tax and as per the order of assessment. Accordingly, penalty was re-determined at 75 per cent of the balance amount of Rs. 34,617 and a sum of Rs. 25,963 was determined as the penalty due. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present tax case. Accordingly, penalty was re-determined at 75 per cent of the balance amount of Rs. 34,617 and a sum of Rs. 25,963 was determined as the penalty due. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present tax case. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the additional documents produced by the assessee clearly show that the purchaser has returned the goods to the dealer and as such, there was no necessity for the assessee to show such sales in their accounts. The learned counsel also contended that in case the Department entertained doubt about the return of machinery, as claimed by the petitioner, they could, at best, have assessed the suppression at Rs. 4,50,000 being the amount shown in the demand draft issued by Sri Poly Pipes through TIIC and as such, determination of turnover on the entire invoice amount was unwarranted. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that there were no acceptable materials produced by the assessee before the authorities below as well as before the Tribunal to demonstrate that the goods supplied by them were in fact returned by the purchaser. The learned Special Government Pleader also contended that in case it was the case of the assessee that they have refunded the price of the goods returned by the customer together with tax collected from such customer, they should have made an application before the assessing officer within thirty days of the receipt or despatch of the goods or before completion of final assessment and admittedly, there was no such claim within the period prescribed by the statute and in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim refund. It is found from the assessment order that a revised return was filed by the assessee for the month of October, 1995 on January 19, 1996, declaring turnover of Rs. 12,42,500, which was omitted to be included in the returns originally filed. The dealers have also paid sales tax on the said sales turnover and accordingly, the assessment order was finalized by the assessing authority. 12,42,500, which was omitted to be included in the returns originally filed. The dealers have also paid sales tax on the said sales turnover and accordingly, the assessment order was finalized by the assessing authority. Even though there were materials to show that the goods were actually supplied by the assessee to Sri Poly Pipes and payment were also made in respect of such sales, there were no acceptable materials produced by the assessee before the authorities below as well as before the Tribunal to show that the sale was in fact cancelled and the goods were returned by the purchaser and consequently, the sale amount has already been refunded to the purchaser with the tax amount. The factual findings recorded by the authorities under the TNGST Act as well as the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or without materials warranting interference by this court in the tax case. Section 4C provides the procedure for refund of tax of sales return and as per the said provision, the claim for refund of tax should be made before the assessing officer within thirty days of the receipt of despatch of the goods or before the completion of final assessment, whichever is later, in the statutory form as prescribed under form I and admittedly, no such claim was made by the assessee, invoking section 4C of the TNGST Act. In such circumstances, the assessing authority was not obliged to accept the plea of the assessee at a belated point of time. In any case, the assessee was not able to demonstrate the return of goods by the purchaser and the corresponding return of the value of such sale with the sales tax collected to the purchaser. In the face of such factual finding rendered against the petitioner, it is not possible for this court to take a different view in the tax case. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner and accordingly, the question of law is decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The tax case is dismissed. No costs.