JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the revision petitioner. The respondent (firm) is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short,"the Act"). We are concerned with the assessment year 1985-86. The assessee-firm is doing business in arrack and today. The assessee's business premises were inspected by the Intelligence Officer of the department on November 6, 1985. The stock was verified. It disclosed shortage of 2,068.500 litres in arrack. There was difference of 1,225 litres in the stock of vinegar. Certain documents were also seized during inspection. They included one used bill book and seven slips. The slips disclosed unaccounted purchase of 60,230 litres of arrack during the period April 1, 1985 to October 31, 1985. The inspection report also showed that no records (accounts ?) were produced for verification. One stock register alone was produced, which was initialled by the officer. Proceedings were initiated for non-maintenance of true and correct accounts. The managing partner of the assessee-firm, who was present at the time of inspection, and had signed the shop inspection report, admitted the offence and prayed for compounding the same. An amount of Rs. 30,000 was levied as the compounding fee. The assessee filed form 8 return for the year disclosing a turnover of Rs. 45,570. The assessing authority found the accounts and the return unacceptable. In particular, he relied on the inspection report of the business premises on November 6, 1985, the unaccounted purchase of arrack disclosed for the period April 1, 1985 to October 31, 1985, the compounding of the offence, the non-production of the sale bills, the production of a different book as stock register and not the one signed by the Intelligence Officer on November 6, 1985, etc., to reject the accounts and to estimate the turnover. In particular, the assessing authority mentioned in the assessment order dated February 10, 1987, that the slips, which were seized and returned to the managing partner with the signature of the Intelligence Officer on March 24, 1986, were not produced before the assessing authority. Considering the hung volume of unaccounted purchases and shortage, the total taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 43,84,920. The tax liability of Rs. 20,62,284 was levied besides the surcharge of Rs. 1,37,485.60. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed by order dated July 8, 1987. Considering the hung volume of unaccounted purchases and shortage, the total taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 43,84,920. The tax liability of Rs. 20,62,284 was levied besides the surcharge of Rs. 1,37,485.60. The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed by order dated July 8, 1987. In the second appeal the Appellate Tribunal by order dated December 22, 1987, held that the assessing authority failed to substantiate the unaccounted purchases and deleted the addition to the extent OF Rs. 42,71,520. The Revenue has come up in revision. 2. We heard the counsel for the revision petitioner (Revenue), as also the counsel for the respondent (assessee). We are not entering into the detailed merits of the case as we are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has failed to deal with the appeal which was before it, in accordance with law. The Appellant Tribunal has not disposed of the appeal either fairly or reasonably. "It is trite law that even doing what is right may result in unfairness if it is done in the wrong way." (Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [1981] 51 Comp Cas 210 (SC) at page 254; AIR 1981 SC 818 at page 844). The order of the Appellate Tribunal discloses procedural unfairness. It is common ground that the business premises of the firm was surprised on November 6, 1985.It is further seen that the at the time of inspection no books of account were available for verification. It is also seen that at the time of inspection the last sale bill issued was No. 14889 dated October 6, 1985 and was signed at the time of inspection by the Intelligence Officer. The daily stock book produced at the time of inspection was signed by the Intelligence Officer on November 6, 1985. One used bill book and seven slips were unearthed during inspection. Proceedings were initiated for not maintaining of true and correct accounts. The assessee admitted the offence and compounded it in the sum of Rs. 30,000. The entire statement relating to the compounding of the offence is seen written in the assessee's own hands in English for 1 1/2 pages. While matters stood thus, during the assessment proceedings accounts were produced, which the assessing authority held as not the one maintained in the ordinary course of bussiness. 30,000. The entire statement relating to the compounding of the offence is seen written in the assessee's own hands in English for 1 1/2 pages. While matters stood thus, during the assessment proceedings accounts were produced, which the assessing authority held as not the one maintained in the ordinary course of bussiness. No sale biils were produced, through they were issued and the last one issued on October 6, 1985, was No. 14889 and signed by the Intelligence Officer. The daily stock book (register) produced at the time of assessment was not the one signed by the Intelligence Officer at the time of inspection on November 6, 1985. The managing partner of the firm who was present at the time of inspection, signed the shop inspection report and also the compounding application. The seized slips, which were returned to the managing partner with the signature of the Intelligence Officer on the date of compounding on March 24, 1986, were not produced before the assessing authority, (so recorded in the files produced) through the assessee stated that it was being produced. The lapses discernible from the above, as also the circumstances, which disclosed that the accounts and returns are incorrect and untrue, that the assessee has with held production of records, which were admittedly with him (found during inspection and signed by the Intelligence Officer), were relied on to reject the accounts and the return and to effect the judgment assessment. In the first appeal, the above aspects were not individually considered, through reference has been made to most of them. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has casually stated that the assessee's authorised representative produced the slips recovered from the business place to substantiate the plea that the figures represented only "rupees" and not "litres." There is no material to show that the officer was alerted on this. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee put forward the plea that the proceedings relating to compounding of the offence tool place in undue haste, that the firm was not given sufficient time to explain the slips and the admission made in the compounding application was not fully voluntary. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that there is force in the above plea, through it did not adjudicate the issue and enter a finding thereon on the merits. The Appellate Tribunal was of the view that there is force in the above plea, through it did not adjudicate the issue and enter a finding thereon on the merits. The Appellate Tribunal further stated that the original slips recorded were produced before them and referred to the photostat copies of them and after individually examining the contents as disclosed, held that notwithstanding the admission of the assessee in the compounding application, the assessee had made our a definite case explaining the slips recorded as the not the ones relating to unaccounted purchases. It further held that the addition on this basis cannot be sustained. In view of the Appellate Tribunal, the assessing authority failed to judge the facts of the case with a fresh mind and was perhaps swayed by the proceedings, which resulted in the compounding of the offence. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision of the authorities below primarily on the basis of the said fresh evidence. 3. As stated, we are not adjudicating the merits of the case in detail, lest, it may prejudice either of the parties in further proceedings. The Sales Tax Officer has positively stated that the seven slips recorded from the business premised and returned to the assessee were never produced. As to why it was not produced before the assessing authority is anybody's guess. Initially it is for the assessing authority to evaluate the impact of the particulars contained in the slip. It is also seen that the sale bills and the daily stock register, which were available at the time of inspection and signed by the Intelligence Officer, were not produced before the assessing authority. Though no books of accounts were available at the time of inspection, at the time of assessment, accounts seems to have been produced. The fact that the assessee admitted the non-maintenance of true and correct accounts and compounded the offence, though not conclusive, was relevant in the assessment proceedings. The assessee failed to rebut the inevitable inference and the presumption that followed from the compounding proceedings and the admissions contained therein; nor did the assessee produce the relevant records stated above. It is due to the absence of proper records and materials, the presumption or inevitable inference flowing from the admissions contained in the compounding application and proceedings was given effect to by the assessing authority. It is due to the absence of proper records and materials, the presumption or inevitable inference flowing from the admissions contained in the compounding application and proceedings was given effect to by the assessing authority. The Appellate Tribunal seems to have perused the original slips and also the photostat copies of the same. The original slips were not produced before us. They are not available in the files. It is anybody's guess as to what they contained. No reason exists or was stated as to why the aforesaid original slips could have been produced before the assessing authority to have his say in the matter. Why, it was withheld ? In the circumstances, the original slips could have been produced before the Appellate Tribunal or perused by them only if they were filed as additional evidence in the appeal. Then only the Revenue will have an opportunity to meet the case. We do not find any application filed by the respondent (assessee) under regulation 48 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1966, to receive the original slips as additional evidence the absence of a prayer or admission of the said slips as additional evidence in the appeal in accordance with the above regulations, the Appellate Tribunal was incompetent and unauthorised to peruse the slips, said to have been recovered and produced before it or to place reliance on them. The procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal in perusing the slips or in placing reliance on them, to conclude "that the assessing authority has not established unaccounted purchases" or that "the compounding established unaccounted purchases" or that "the compounding proceedings were done in undue haste" or "without giving sufficient time to explain". etc., is grossly unfair and unjustified. The submission of the Revenue that the Appellate Tribunal interfered with the best judgment assessment made by the assessing authority in an unfair manner by referring to material which were not properly and legally it and also totally failed to give due and proper effect to the compounding of the offence by the assessee (firm) in the sum of Rs. 30,000 and the failure to produce primary documents, like the sale bills and the daily stock register available and produced before the Intelligence Officer and signed by him on November 6, 1985 and the crucial slips, is plainly justified on the totality of the facts and circumstances. 30,000 and the failure to produce primary documents, like the sale bills and the daily stock register available and produced before the Intelligence Officer and signed by him on November 6, 1985 and the crucial slips, is plainly justified on the totality of the facts and circumstances. We are of the view, that the Appellate Tribunal did not dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. "Unfairness" and "unreasonableness" are writ large in the manner of disposal. On this short ground the decision of the Appellate Tribunal dated December 22, 1987, is erroneous in law and deserves to be annulled. 4. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated December 22, 1987, and order a remit of the matter to the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant Tribunal shall restore the appeal to file and dispose of the same in accordance with law, and in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. The tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.