MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated March 31, 1990, by which the appeal of the assessee has partly been allowed and tax, interest and penalty imposed under section 7aa of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called "the Act") of Rs. 9,120, Rs. 4,560 and Rs. 6,567, respectively have been set aside. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE assessee is a manufacturer of chlorinated paraffin wax. Chlorine gas and paraffin was are used as raw materials. During the assessment year 1984-85 (June 1, 1983 to May 31, 1984), the assessee showed shortage of 58,057 kilograms of gas. THE assessing authority disallowed the shortage of 19,000 kilograms of gas and levied tax, interest and penalty on this amount of shortage. THE assessee unsuccessfully preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). THEreafter, he preferred second appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. Para No. 6 of the order of the Tribunal runs as under : " 6. In this case, the assessee is a manufacturer of chlorinated paraffin wax. In manufacturing process chlorine and solvent gases are used as raw materials. During the course of manufacturing, there is wastage of gases which evaporate. THE assessing authority has disallowed the shortage of part of the gases without any basis. THE proper course for the assessing authority, before disallowing the shortage is he should have either given the finding on the basis of printed material regarding this industry that in the manufacture of chlorinated paraffin gases only this much of the percentage of gases evaporates or he should have given comparative figures of the earlier years for disallowing the shortage. THE another way of the determining the shortage was the comparative figures of shortage which is being claimed by other industries manufacturing the same goods that is chlorinated paraffin wax. But tax cannot be levied merely on surmises or on the basis of guess work. According to the ruling reported in [1966] 17 STC 465 (SC) (State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty), [1977] 39 STC 30 (SC) (Girdhari Lal Nannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner), the burden is on the assessing authority to prove the shortage. " It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the assessee has claimed excessive amount of shortage of chlorine gas and gave rise to a presumption of its suppressed sale and burden of rebutting it was on the assessee and not on the department. He also contended that the Tribunal should have remanded the case to the assessing authority for determining the correct estimated wastage of gas resulting in the manufacturing process of the chlorinated wax. There is no substance in this revision petition. No exception can be taken on the above quoted observations of the learned Member of the Tribunal. It is perfectly justified. It has not been shown as to how it suffers from any infirmity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any reason which disabled or prohibited the assessing authority to adopt the course pointed out by the learned Member for correctly estimating the loss of gas during the manufacturing process of chlorinated paraffin wax. A revision is maintainable under section 15 of the Act only on question of law. It is clear from the revision petition that no question of law is involved in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to show as to what question of law is involved in this revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition is summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;