ORDER : T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. Heard Mr.R. Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/Revenue. 2. This Tax Case Revision has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench) Madurai, in M.T.A.No.372/1996, dated 06.02.2004. 3. This Tax Case Revision has been admitted on the following questions of law: “1.Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the stock variation arrived by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Appellate Authority? 2. Consequently, whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act on the belated turnover?” 4. The short question which falls for consideration in the instant case is that whether the figures which were furnished by the dealer to their bankers for the purpose of obtaining loan could have been the sole basis for presuming that there is a difference in stock equated to purchase or sale transaction. The Tribunal which considered the correctness of the order passed by the Appellant Assistant Commissioner, took into consideration the decision reported in (1977) 39 STC 30 (SC) in the case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P., and held that the onus to prove the ingredients that there was undisclosed sales was on the department. 5. The case of the dealer was that those figures, which were furnished to the banker were only boosted up figures for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank and the same cannot be the basis for assuming that there is a difference in stock equated to purchase or sales transaction. 6. Being satisfied that the figures were boosted up figures and the real purchase and sale transaction effected by the dealer were not established by the Department, the appeal filed by the dealer was allowed. 7. At this stage, we may note the following decisions on the said point. (i) In the case of Asha Industries v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.Lucknow reported in [2009] 20 VST 465(All); (ii) In the case of Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Varanasi Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2010] 29 VST 251(All); and (iii) In the case of Prasad Properties and Investment (P) Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in [2014] 75 VST 343(mad). 8. 8. In the light of the above legal possession, the first question framed for consideration is answered in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue and consequently, as we have held that the order passed by the Appellant Tribunal deleting the penalty is found to be justified, the question No.2 is also answered in favour of the dealer and against the Revenue. Accordingly, this Tax Case Revision is dismissed. No Costs.