Suppression of turnover implies wilful non-disclosure and can justify penalty even without express words to that effect.

A finding of suppression of turnover under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as sufficient to sustain penalty, because suppression itself implied conscious and wilful non-disclosure of taxable turnover. Where assessment records showed transactions kept in anamath accounts and omitted from the regular books, the absence of an express finding using the words "wilful" or "wilful non-disclosure" did not defeat penalty. On that basis, the Tribunal's deletion of the penalty was held incorrect, and the levy was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a finding of suppression of turnover under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, penalty could be sustained in the absence of an express finding of wilful non-disclosure.

Analysis: The assessment materials showed that the dealer had maintained anamath accounts revealing transactions not entered in the regular books. The use of the expression "suppression" was treated as sufficient to indicate that the omission was deliberate and not a mere accidental omission. On that view, a separate recital of wilfulness was not necessary where the finding of suppression itself clearly imported conscious non-disclosure of turnover liable to tax.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed and its deletion by the Tribunal was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of suppression of turnover, in the context of penalty under section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, implies wilful non-disclosure and can support levy of penalty even without an express finding in those exact words.

---