Judgment K. Raviraja Pandian, J. 1. This revision is filed under section 38 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Coimbatore dated 30.07.1996 made in CTA No.305/1995. 2. The facts of the case are : For the assessment year 1993-94 the assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs.28,59,453.42 and Rs.28,00,752.17 respectively. The total and taxable turnover as per the accounts were accepted by the assessing officer, but the returns filed by the assessee were rejected as incorrect and incomplete. On verification, it was found that the assessee has collected excess tax in a sum of Rs.11,345.57 towards sales tax which was in contravention of the provisions of the Act and therefore the assessing authority levied penalty under section 22(2)(ii) of the Act and also levied penalty under section 12(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Act for the difference towards tax, surcharge and additional surcharge. As against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee produced nine credit notes for a sum of Rs.6,516/-. So, the appellate authority remanded the matter in respect of penalty of Rs.9,774/- (1½ times of Rs.6,516/-) to the assessing officer to verify the credit note particulars and then pass orders on merits. In respect of the balance amount of Rs.4,829/- penalty levied at 1½ times in a sum of Rs.7,243/- is confirmed. On appeal before the Tribunal, levy of penalty under section 32(2) has been confirmed. In respect of levy of penalty under section 12(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee that the assessee is not liable to pay penalty under the above said provision. In this revision, the correctness of the order confirming the levy of penalty under section 22(2) of the Act by the Tribunal is canvassed by the assessee by raising the following question of law : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.17,108/- under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959?" 3. We heard the learned senior counsel and the learned Special Government Pleader and perused the materials available on record. 4. We heard the learned senior counsel and the learned Special Government Pleader and perused the materials available on record. 4. As per the records, it is manifest that the appellant collected excess sum of Rs.11,345.57 towards tax, which is over and above the permissible limit. The assessee/appellant has admitted that instead of collecting 3% of the tax, it has collected 4%. However, it was the contention of the assessee that the excess collection of the tax was returned to the concerned parties by issuance of credit notes. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that on 25.08.1994 the assessing officer has passed the final assessment order. After passing of that order, nine credit notes were obtained from 111. 1994 to 212. 1994, for the transactions held during 18.05.1993 on 01.09.1993. The so called 9 credit notes were regarded as not genuine, and created for the purpose of avoiding penalty under section 22(2) of the Act, because those credit notes were dated nearly one year after the corresponding transaction took place. On a thorough perusal of the records, it is evident that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the credit notes were created for the purpose of the case and on after thought. Even the total amount as per the credit notes was only for Rs.6,516/- and for the remaining amount there was no credit note. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the credit notes produced at the appellate stage were not genuine, but were created for the purpose of avoiding penalty. Before us nothing has been made out to repudiate that factual finding. 5. Learned senior counsel simply reiterated that the tax collected over and above has been repaid by means of credit notes but in respect of the balance amount, there is no answer forthcoming. Even in respect of the credit note for the amount of Rs.6,516/-except saying that the credit notes are available, the counsel has not explained why there was a delay in making the repayments of the excess tax to the extent of Rs.6,516/-. The assessee has not produced any supporting materials from the ultimate consumers, who are stated to have received the excess payment of tax. In the absence of any such materials, we do not find any irregularity in the order of the Tribunal. 6. The assessee has not produced any supporting materials from the ultimate consumers, who are stated to have received the excess payment of tax. In the absence of any such materials, we do not find any irregularity in the order of the Tribunal. 6. It is also contended that the appeal was in respect of disallowance of a sum of Rs.7243/-. However, the Tribunal has confirmed the entire penalty, which includes Rs.9774/- for reconstruction of which the matter was remanded to the assessing officer. We are of the view that this contention also is not supporting the case of the assessee in view of the decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Jeevanlal Ltd., (1996) 103 STC 99, wherein it was held that once the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was brought on the anvil of scrutiny of the Appellate Tribunal by the assessee by filing appeal, against the adverse part of that order, the entire order becomes open for scrutiny of the appellate Tribunal and the entire controversy qua that order vis a vis both the contesting parties, namely, the assessee on the one hand and the revenue on the other, comes under the scrutiny of the Tribunal. 7. The revision is dismissed for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs. No costs.