IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 ST.Rev..No. 43 of 2003 ------------------------------ TA.183/1994 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSINER (LAW), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ SPL.GOVT.PLEADER RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: --------------------------------------------------------- M/S. CHETTUPUZHA MATHEW & SONS, JEWELLERS, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER SRI.TONY CHACKO THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.T.Rev.No.43 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of August 2008 ORDER H.L.DATTU, C.J. The Revenue calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Palakkad in T.A.144/94 and 183/94 dated 28th May, 2001. The Revenue has framed the following questions of law for our consideration and decision. They are as under: “When book of accounts and return are rejected by the assessing authority and estimated addition made on materials is it justified from the part of the appellate authorities to interfere with the estimation of addition made on running stock method in the light of grave irregularities variation and compounding committed by the assessee. Is not the finding of the appellate tribunal reducing the estimation to 5 percentage of the turnover returned unfair, arbitrary and improportionate to the variation detected.” S.T.Rev.No.43 OF 2003 :: 2 :: 2. The facts in brief are: The assessee/respondent herein is doing business in jewellery. The assessment year in question is 1991-1992. The business premises of the assessee was inspected by the Intelligence Officer of the Department on 20-2-1992. After physical verification of the stock found at the time of inspection, the inspecting authority had noticed that there was 6.5 gms of new ornaments in excess than what was reflected in the stock registers and further there was a shortage of 21.8 gms of gold than what was reflected in the books of accounts. It is pertinent to notice here that the total quantity of gold sold by the assessee during that year was 6350 gms. 3. When it was pointed out to the assessee about the excess and shortage of old and new gold jewellery, the assessee had compounded the offence departmentally and in lieu of the prosecution proceedings. 4. The assessee had filed its annual returns before the assessing authority for the assessment year 1991-1992 and in that had conceded a total and taxable turn over of Rs.27,88,974.70. 5. The assessing authority, after verification of the books of accounts and in view of the shop inspection report dated 20-2-1992, had rejected the books of accounts and the returns filed by the assessee and thereafter had proceeded to complete the best judgment assessment and has estimated the sales at 4 times the running stock. S.T.Rev.No.43 OF 2003 :: 3 :: 6. Aggrieved by the quantification so made by the assessing authority, the assessee had filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority in S.T.A.450/93. 7. The First Appellate Authority, by its order dated 27-12-93, has modified the quantification of the tax liability of the assessee by reducing it to 25% of the conceded turn over by the assessee. 8. The assessee and the Revenue, aggrieved by the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority had carried the matter by way of second appeal before the Tribunal in T.A.144/94 and 183/94 respectively. The Tribunal, in the appeal filed by the assessee, has further reduced the addition made by the assessing authority to 5% of the conceded turn over and consequently rejected the appeal filed by the State in T.A.183/94. The correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Tribunal is the subject matter of this revision petition. 9. First and foremost, the orders passed by the authorities under the Act and the Tribunal is purely based on the facts. No question of law as such would arise for our consideration. The revision petition can be entertained by this court only on two grounds. Firstly, if the Tribunal has failed to decide the question of law or has erroneously decided the question of law. At this stage, we also intend to add, if the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal which is the last fact finding authority is a perverse one, then also it will be a question of law which can be S.T.Rev.No.43 OF 2003 :: 4 :: looked into by this court in exercise of its power under Section 41 of the Act. 10. The facts which have narrated would clearly demonstrate that the estimation has been made by the assessing authority while quantifying the liability for the assessment year 1991-1992 on the basis of the best judgment assessment. 11. The First Appellate Authority and the Tribunal has scaled down the additions made by the assessing authority. All these has been done purely based on the facts pleaded by the assessee and countered by the Sale Tax representatives. In our opinion, no question of law as such would arise for our consideration and decision. Therefore, while affirming the finding of the Tribunal, we reject this revision petition. 12. Consequently, I.A.No.54 of 2008 stands dismissed. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE jes