K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - (1.)THESE three revisions are filed by two different assessees under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In T. R. C. No. 106 of 1992, filed by the assessee, the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T. A. No. 532 of 1988, dated October 3, 1991, in challenge. T. R. C. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1992 are filed by the same assessee. The challenge in these two revisions is against the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated December 2, 1991 in T. A. Nos. 809 and 810 of 1989. Common questions arise for consideration in the above three tax revision cases.
(2.)WE heard counsel for the petitioner in the three revisions. Mr. Jose Joseph and also counsel for the respondent/revenue - Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. The questions posed for consideration in the above cases are as follows : T. R. C. No. 106 of 1992 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the levy of tax under section 5a on the petitioner is valid and sustainable ? 2. Whether section 5a is enforceable and workable on the basis of the rules framed in 1963 while section 5a was inserted only with effect from April 1, 1970 ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the addition made to the purchase turnover as well as sales turnover ? T. R. C. No. 124 of 1992 : 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of tax under section 5a on the petitioner is valid and sustainable ? 2. Whether section 5a is enforceable and workable on the basis of the rules framed in 1963 while section 5a was inserted only with effect from April 1, 1970 ? T. R. C. No. 125 of 1992 : 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of tax under section 5a on the petitioner is valid and sustainable ? 2. Whether section 5a is enforceable and workable on the basis of the rules framed in 1963 while section 5a was inserted only with effect from April 1, 1970 ? 3. At the threshold, the learned Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James raised a preliminary objection to the effected that the revisions are not maintainable. It was submitted that the three questions formulated in T. R. C. No. 106 of 1992 and the two questions formulated in T. R. C. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1992 were never raised or argued before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has also not adjudicated the said questions. In these circumstances, counsel argued that it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal decided any question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. If the question of law was not mooted or raised or adjudicated, it cannot be said that the Appellate Tribunal decided the question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. Counsel for the petitioners/assessees, Mr. Jose Joseph could not meet the said point. Counsel for the petitioners stated that these points were not raised before the Appellate Tribunal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the preliminary objection taken by the learned Government Pleader should prevail. The questions formulated for the decision of this Court were never mooted or raised before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal had no occasion to adjudicate those questions. It cannot be stated that the Appellate Tribunal decided any question of law erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The revisions filed under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act are therefore incompetent. We hold so. On this short ground, the three revisions should fail. We hold accordingly.

Even on the merits, we should state that the petitioners have no cause to complain. In T. R. C. No. 106 of 1992, the assessee/petitioner is a hotelier. We are concerned with the assessment year 1986-87. There was a surprise inspection of the assessee's business premises on September 26, 1986. It disclosed considerable purchase suppressions. Based on the above and other facts, the accounts were rejected. Before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the only plea was that the addition to the conceded purchase is excessive. The Appellate Tribunal adverted to this aspect in paragraphs 2 to 4 of its order. The Tribunal fond that the accounts and returns were rejected and a best judgment assessment was made on proper basis. The inspection in the head office on September 26, 1986 disclosed substantial suppression. Similarly, the inspection in the branch office at Kollam disclosed substantial suppression. It turned out that both in the head office and in the branch office there was suppression of a substantial nature. After entering the said finding, the Appellate Tribunal held that 25 per cent addition for the defects is reasonable and fair.

(3.)ON facts, we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal had enough materials before it to reject the accounts and sustain the best judgment assessment confirming the quantum added by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There is no error of law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal October 3, 1991. ON the merits also, T. R. C. No. 106 of 1992 deserves to be dismissed. We hold so.
Similarly, in T. R. C. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1992, the assessee is a hotelier. The assessments relate to the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. There was an inspection of the business premises of the assessee on October 31, 1986. Huge suppressions were found out. Proper books of account were not available. For both the years, there were irregularities in the accounts. The assessing authority, first appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal held, that in view of the defects noticed for both the years, the returns and the accounts could not be accepted. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated December 2, 1992, the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for the rejection of accounts and also for sustaining the estimate made by the lower authorities and in sustaining the addition to 50 per cent of the unsupported purchases as per accounts to cover up the omissions estimated. This is for the year 1986-87. No modification was made for the year 1987-88. Having found that the returns and accounts are not acceptable for both the years, the Appellate Tribunal gave quantum relief, for the year 1986-87, but declined to do so for the year 1987-88. In a case where the accounts are rejected and best judgment assessment is warranted, the quantum of estimate to be made is largely a question of fact. As the final fact-finding authority, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has given detailed reasons in the common order dated December 2, 1991 for sustaining the estimates made. The order of the Appellate Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law.

;