Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. This Revision is directed against Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal [STAT] in MTA No.81/1999 confirming the levy of penalty under Sec.12(3) of TNGST Act. 2. Assessee had been assessed on a total and taxable turnover of Rs.4,59,306/- and Rs.4,27,133/- respectively as against the reported total and taxable turnover of Rs.3,73,805/- and Rs.2,91,632/- respectively for the year 1996-97 based on the defects noticed at the time of checking of accounts. Upon scrutiny, it was noticed that the assessee had not accounted for certain Inter-State purchases of granite tiles effected to the extent of Rs.1,35,500/-. While making assessment, the Assessing Officer brought the sales of granite tiles at Rs.1,35,500/-by adding the lorry freight and gross profit on the purchase of granite tiles. Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Sec.12(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, Petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) who dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before STAT. Confirming the levy of penalty, STAT has dismissed the appeal. 4. In this Revision, the only issue relates to levy of penalty under Sec.12(3) of the Act. The question falling for consideration is that when the entire amount of tax was paid by the Petitioner by cheque dated 07.01.1998 before completion of assessment, whether levy of penalty under Sec.12(3) of the Act is in order. 5. Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner had made payment by way of cheque [No.697629] dated 07.01.1998 even prior to passing of the order and while so, in view of the decision reported in 125 STC 107 [Chennai Textile Chemicals Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another], levy of penalty was not warranted. It was further submitted that even though, payment of entire amount was brought to the notice of AAC (CT) and also the Tribunal, the authorities have not kept in view the payment made by cheque dated 07.01.1998. 6. We have heard Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader [Taxes]. Drawing our attention to the order of AAC (CT), learned Special Government Pleader submitted that if the presentation of cheque [No.697629] on 01. 1998 is true, then the Petitioner could have pointed out the same before the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard Mr. Haja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader [Taxes]. Drawing our attention to the order of AAC (CT), learned Special Government Pleader submitted that if the presentation of cheque [No.697629] on 01. 1998 is true, then the Petitioner could have pointed out the same before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that as seen from the assessment order and the order of AAC (CT), Petitioner has not produced any material to show that cheque was presented prior to passing of the order. 7. In the Typed set of papers, letter of the Petitioner dated 01. 1998 enclosing cheque No.697629 dated 01. 1998 for Rs.14,905/-has been filed. Before us, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has also produced Bank statement of accounts of the Petitioner indicating encashment of cheque No.697629 for Rs.14,905/- on 1. 1998. As per the assessment order [01. 1998], the balance tax payable was only Rs.10,332/-whereas even on 01. 1998, Petitioner has given cheque bearing No.697629 for Rs.14,905/-. Even though, the cheque for Rs.14,905/-was encahsed on 1. 1998, it relates back to the date of cheque. 8. In 125 STC 107 [Chennai Textile Chemicals Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another], the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "21. ........ Even though in a given case or more than one case, the quantum of turnover suppressed or the tax sought to be avoided also, at times, may be one and the same, if the particular assessee, at the time of final assessment, found to have otherwise paid any amount already before such final assessment, sufficient to go to reduce the tax liability ultimately determined, the imposition of penalty to that extent is reduced. ......." Since cheque bearing No. 697629 dated 01. 1998 for Rs.14,905/- was given by the assessee even on 01. 1998, as per the above decision, levy of penalty under Sec.12 (3) of the Act is not justified. Both AAC (CT) and STAT have not taken note of the payment of the amount by way of cheque dated 01. 1998 and therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are set aside and the Revision is allowed. No costs.