IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2006 / 17TH ASWINA 1928 ST.Rev..No. 41 of 2004() ------------------------ TA.155/2002 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ M/S. ALEEF MARBLES, PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: APPELLANT: ----------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERS SRI.V.V.ASOKAN AND SRI.JULIAN XAVIER THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.M.JOSEPH, JJ. ``````````````````````````` S.T.REVISION NO.41 OF 2004 ``````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of October, 2006 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J The order under challenge is the penalty levied under Section 29 A of the K.G.S.T. Act confirmed by the Tribunal after reversing first appellate authority's order. 2. Counsel contended that Tribunal is not justified in reversing the finding of fact by the first appellate authority because no variation was noticed on inspection. 3. However, we find that inspection was carried out by the Intelligence Officer and he noticed physical variation from accounted quantity. It is seen from the first appellate order that he has just accepted the argument of the petitioner that the inspection report was not correct. Since the Tribunal found factual variation in stock based on inspection report after comparing with the accounted quantity shown in the books of accounts, we are inclined to uphold the Tribunal's order, which is based on evidence. We, therefore dismiss the S.T.Revision. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE WPC : 2 : Rp