ORDER N. Kumar, J.—This revision is by the assessee challenging the order passed by the authorities levying Central sales tax as well as penalty for the goods sold to an extent of Rs. 2,24,24,991. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of rice bran oil. It has a manufacturing unit at Boothana Hosur in Mandya District. It is also engaged in trading in de-oiled rice bran and broken rice to some extent. It has a branch office at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The assessee is registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee filed a return of turnover in respect of the assessment year 2001-02 declaring a taxable turnover relating to inter-State sales of de-oiled rice bran and rice bran oil liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") at Rs. 2,75,39,302.94. It claimed exemption in respect of stock transfer of de-oiled rice bran to its branch in Coimbatore at Rs. 5,80,70,426. They were duly supported by form F issued by the said branch office. The assessing authority verified the books of account, accepted the claim of the assessee relating to stock transfer only to the extent of Rs. 3,56,45,435 and rejected the claim in respect of the balance value of Rs. 2,24,24,991 and levied tax at two per cent considering the same as inter-State sales. The assessing authority also levied penalty of Rs. 2,25,000 under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 by the assessment order dated May 6, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Mysore, which came to be dismissed by an order dated August 27, 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred a second appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is before this Court in revision. 2. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, assailing the impugned order, contends that the exemption claimed by the assessee in respect of stock transfer is supported by form F which were filed along with the returns. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is before this Court in revision. 2. The Learned Counsel for the assessee, assailing the impugned order, contends that the exemption claimed by the assessee in respect of stock transfer is supported by form F which were filed along with the returns. Merely because in some of the invoices the names of the consignee is mentioned as well as the payment of freight charges is mentioned, it cannot be presumed that the goods transmitted under those invoices are on account of the inter-State sales. In the absence of any material on record to show that the contract was entered into in the State of Karnataka on account of which the goods moved form Karnataka State to Tamil Nadu, the Central sales tax is not liable to be paid. This goods were transferred from their head office at Mandya to their branch office at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. It is a case of stock transfer, which is evident from F form, and the branch in turn has sold these goods to the local dealers and they have paid the tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, the authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim to the extent they have done. He submitted that when the entire transactions are shown in the return filed, there is no suppression of any material. At the worst, it may be a case of different opinion and on that ground, in law, no penalty can be imposed as penalty is not automatic and therefore, he submits that these impugned orders are not sustainable and require to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Revenue submitted that though the assessee had filed a return along with F forms, on an investigation, it was found that the said F forms disclose that the bills were raised in favour of different dealers in Tamil Nadu and the goods were dispatched from Mandya directly to them. Therefore, it is a case of inter-State sales and sales tax is payable under the Act. Once, the said fact is borne out from the records, it is clear that the returns filed is not correct. There is an attempt to evade payment of tax and there is suppression of material. Therefore, it is a case of inter-State sales and sales tax is payable under the Act. Once, the said fact is borne out from the records, it is clear that the returns filed is not correct. There is an attempt to evade payment of tax and there is suppression of material. Certainly, it cannot be said to be a bona fide transaction and therefore, the authorities were justified in imposing a penalty and in fact, the penalty is the minimum prescribed under the law. Therefore, no ground is made out for interfering with the order of imposing tax as well as penalty. 4. From the aforesaid materials, it is not in dispute that the assessee is registered as a dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act. He has a manufacturing unit in Karnataka at Mandya District and a branch office at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The record discloses that he is in the habit of making stock transfers from Mandya to Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. It is not in dispute that no tax is payable for stock transfers. The assessee has paid the Central sales tax in respect of a turnover of Rs. 2,75,39,302.94 paise. However, he claimed exemption in respect of de-oiled rice bran to its branch in Coimbatore in a sum of Rs. 5,80,70,426 as stock transfers. In the course of investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Intelligence III), Mysore, inspected the business premises on December 4, 2003 and noticed that the sales were conducted to outside consignees. Eight freight letter pads maintained by the assessee for despatch of de-oiled rice bran directly to the outside consignees were noticed and they were seized by the inspecting authorities by passing seizure orders under section 28(3) of the Act. The freight letters contain name and address of the purchaser, quantity sent, vehicle number in which goods were moved from Boothana Hosur, nature of goods sold, the respective sale bill numbers, date and the freight amount payable by the consignee. The said sale bills noted in the freight letters are bills raised for movement of goods as a result of sale in favour of the ultimate purchaser. The assessee managed to tender form No. 39 to the respective authorities to make them believe the transaction as stock transfer. The real transaction noted in the freight letter is a sale. The said sale bills noted in the freight letters are bills raised for movement of goods as a result of sale in favour of the ultimate purchaser. The assessee managed to tender form No. 39 to the respective authorities to make them believe the transaction as stock transfer. The real transaction noted in the freight letter is a sale. This is conspicuously not disclosed and accidentally it was looked into by the inspecting officer, which resulted in the seizure of the records. The entire stock transfer claimed is similar inter-State sales disguised as stock transfer. The assessee has disguised inter-State sales as stock transferred, though the goods have moved as a result of sale directly to the ultimate purchaser. Even the payments are received either on the date of sales or on subsequent dates as could be seen from the ledger extract given by the State Bank of India. The evidence gathered showed that goods were directly sold to the ultimate purchaser with documents of the sale bill raised at the factory in the name of the branch at Coimbatore. The alleged sale bills bearing branch name and address are the documents generated at Boothana Hosur factory, Mysore. It is on the basis of the aforesaid material, the assessing authority has held that the claim for stock transfer to the extent of Rs. 2,24,24,991 is to be treated as inter-State sales and therefore, it concluded the assessment order levying a tax of Rs. 17,12,195. 5. Thereafter, consequent to the said order, a notice was issued proposing to levy the penalty under section 9(2) read with section 12(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee contended that the transaction under question are stock transfer and hence, requested for dropping of the penal action. 17,12,195. 5. Thereafter, consequent to the said order, a notice was issued proposing to levy the penalty under section 9(2) read with section 12(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee contended that the transaction under question are stock transfer and hence, requested for dropping of the penal action. After considering the said request, as the material available clearly showed that the assessee has actually effected inter-State sale of de-oiled rice bran form Mandya District (State of Karnataka) to the different parties in the State of Tamil Nadu and the assessee sent a confirmation letter to the ultimate buyers informing them about the dispatch of goods and also mentioning the relevant invoice number and goods vehicle number in the said document and also directed ultimate buyer to pay the freight amount and also check the quantity of the goods in the goods vehicle, it was held that in the light of the aforesaid facts, the assessee is liable to pay a minimum penalty of Rs. 2,25,000 imposed on the assessee. In the light of the aforesaid material on record, it is not possible to accept the contention of the assessee that he was under a bona fide belief that he is not liable to pay the sales tax on stock transfers and hence, he did not pay the same and it is a case of change of opinion by the authorities and under any circumstances not a case for imposing penalty. The aforesaid material and particularly, the documents laid on clearly shows the intention on the part of the assessee to avoid the payment of Central sales tax and misleading the authorities. The contents of form F are also not true. It also discloses the guilty mind. Under these circumstances, the authorities were justified in disallowing the exemption and were justified in imposing penalty. The contention that the penalty imposable under the Act is discretionary and the authorities have to record a reason for imposing penalty and in fact the first appellate authority did not go into the said question and therefore, the order requires to be set aside is without any substance. The contention that the penalty imposable under the Act is discretionary and the authorities have to record a reason for imposing penalty and in fact the first appellate authority did not go into the said question and therefore, the order requires to be set aside is without any substance. As set out above after passing the assessment order, notice was issued to the assessee so as to hear him in the matter and relying on the very material, the assessing authority has recorded a finding that the conduct of the assessee shows the quality mind to evade payment of tax and after referring to the various acts, he found that a case for imposing penalty is made out. When the entire order imposing penalty is read as a whole, it is obvious that the authorities applied their mind and considered the objections of the assessee keeping the law in the background and have rightly imposed the minimum penalty leviable under the Act. In fact, the Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on various judgments of the apex court where it has been held that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and a case of a guilty mind is to be made out. One of the citations states that the penalty is liable if the returns filed is false. The factum of a false return is to be assessed for imposing penalty. Absolutely, there is no quarrel with any of these propositions. In the KST Act, if the return filed is incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall assess the dealer to the best of its judgment recording reasons for such assessments after hearing him and then when making such an order, the authority is empowered to levy penalty. The case of the assessee squarely falls within the aforesaid events, i.e., it is both the case of an incorrect return and an incomplete return. Therefore, the assessing authority was justified in imposing the penalty. The three fact-finding authorities have concurrently held that the tax and penalty is leviable and the said finding is based on legal evidence and within the four comers of law. No case for interference in the revision is made out. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.