Suppression of turnover can support penalty where the order shows deliberate non-disclosure and application of mind.

Penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, required wilful non-disclosure of turnover, but the assessing order did not have to repeat the statutory words verbatim if it otherwise showed application of mind to deliberate omission. The High Court treated "suppression" and "concealment" as conveying intentional non-disclosure and applied earlier reasoning under section 16(2) to the amended provision. On that basis, the finding of suppression was sufficient to sustain the penalty, and the challenge to the revisional order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the use of the word "suppression" in the assessment order was sufficient to sustain penalty under section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the basis that the turnover was wilfully not disclosed.

Analysis: Penalty under section 12(3) required a wilful non-disclosure of turnover. The Court held that it was not necessary for the assessing authority to reproduce the statutory phrase in so many words if the order showed application of mind to the question of wilfulness. The expressions "suppression" and "concealment" were treated as conveying intentional non-disclosure, and the reasoning adopted in earlier decisions under section 16(2) was applied to the amended section 12(3). On that basis, the finding of suppression was sufficient to support the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly sustained and the challenge to the revisional order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding of "suppression" of turnover can amount to a finding of wilful non-disclosure for the purpose of penalty where the order shows that the assessing authority applied its mind to the deliberate nature of the omission.

---