place has no basis for returning the turnover at four per cent. Secondly, even after receipt of notice from the assessing officer pointing out short payment of tax, which happened sometime in July, 2005 itself, petitioner has not chosen to revise the return or remit tax on which there is no contest. This prompted the assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings and the assessing officer levied huge penalty of Rs. 96 lakhs for two different periods of the same year. The Tribunal however sustained only Rs. 5 lakhs which is actually 5 per cent of the penalty initially levied by the assessing officer and only around 8 per cent of the penalty sustained by the first appellate authority. Even though petitioner did not make serious contest against assessment at higher rate of 12.5 per cent and the petitioner has in fact made payment, though with delay along with interest, we notice that all these were done by the petitioner only because of the prompt action taken by the assessing officer in making assessment. If petitioner voluntarily filed revised returns and remitted tax in response to the notice issued by the assessing officer, then certainly petitioner could have claimed total immunity from payment of penalty. However, in this case, tax was paid
