JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The Revenue is the petitioner in this tax revision case. The respondent is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The matter relates to the assessment year 1987-88. The assessee was doing business in arrack, at Muringoor, Chalakudy, during the relevant period. It did not file an application for registration, till the very last date of the year (till March 30, 1988). It bid in auction, arrack shops in Group No. IV of the Chalakudy Range for Rs. 33 lakhs. The Intelligence Squad (of Sales Tax) conducted a surprise inspection of the business place of the assessee and also the office of the assessee's accountant at Angamaly. The inspection reports are Nos. 07143 and 07144 dated March 7, 1988. Many books and papers were recovered during the said inspection. The books so recovered related to the assessee's business. They are day-books for the period from March 3, 1987 to January 2, 1988 and January 2, 1988 to March 3, 1988, ledger for 1987-88 in two volumes, trial balance for the period from 1987 to February, 1988 and daily statement from March 3, 1988 to March 5, 1988, daily stock register for 1987-88, daily issue register for the period from February 6, 1988, onwards and purchase bills for the year 1987-88. The above seized records were examined in the presence of the managing partner Shri P. P. Varkey on April 25, 1988 and April 30, 1988. It turned out that purchase of arrack to the tune of Rs. 9,77,200 was from unauthorised sources and there were no purchase bills therefor. The total purchase of arrack as per ledger up to the period March 7, 1988 was for Rs. 15,91,217.30. The assessee had effected purchases and sales of cola, arishtam, cork and empty bottles. The sales of arrack, as per the ledger recovered for the period from April 1, 1987 to March 7, 1988, was for Rs. 75,61,692. There was a shortage of 20,69,900 litres of arrack. In the statement of the managing partner Shri P. P. Varkey, he admitted the irregularities in the maintenance of accounts and also other omissions. The statement was recorded on April 30, 1988. The assessee subsequently filed a petition before the Intelligence Officer (Sales Tax) dated May 16, 1988 admitting the offence on non-maintenance of proper account books, etc. In the statement of the managing partner Shri P. P. Varkey, he admitted the irregularities in the maintenance of accounts and also other omissions. The statement was recorded on April 30, 1988. The assessee subsequently filed a petition before the Intelligence Officer (Sales Tax) dated May 16, 1988 admitting the offence on non-maintenance of proper account books, etc. Since the offence committed exposed the assessee to prosecution, the assessee in writing requested the Intelligence Officer to compound the offence. The Intelligence Officer did so. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was paid as compounding fee by the assessee on May 16, 1988. The assessee filed an application on March 30, 1988, for registration. In the said application dated March 30, 1988, the turnover for the year up to March 30, 1988, was shown as Rs. 52,50,000. Form 8 return for the period ending March 31, 1988, was filed on January 31, 1989. It disclosed the total turnover at Rs. 46,90,700 and exemption was claimed on the entire turnover. Certain books were also produced for verification. As per the books of accounts 48,840 litres of arrack have been purchased and the purchase price was shown as Rs. 6,94,005.80. The said quantity was sold for Rs. 46,90,700. Exemption was claimed on the entire turnover as second sales. The sales were not supported by bills or any records of original entry. In the meanwhile, the account books and other documents seized were returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988. During the assessment, the books admittedly seized by the Intelligence Officer, on the above dates, were not produced before the assessing authority for verification, for the purpose of final assessment. In the light of the inspection reports, various documents seized and the compounding of offence in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh and in the light of the non-production of the books found at the time of surprise inspection on March 7, 1988, the assessing authority rejected the books produced at the time of assessment and effected a best judgment assessment. The taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 54,08,070. The first appeal filed by the assessee was unsuccessful. 1 lakh and in the light of the non-production of the books found at the time of surprise inspection on March 7, 1988, the assessing authority rejected the books produced at the time of assessment and effected a best judgment assessment. The taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 54,08,070. The first appeal filed by the assessee was unsuccessful. However, in second appeal, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal noticed the plea of the assessee that the Intelligence Officer's proceedings dated June 22, 1988, was not communicated to the assessee and so it could not challenge the legality of the proceedings before the higher authorities and seek appropriate remedy so as to say, it was validly made. The further plea that no sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee was taken note of by the Appellate Tribunal and it was held that the authorities below failed to go into all aspects of the case in depth, in order to ascertain the quantum of suppression actually indulged in by the firm. It was inclined to take the view that the compounding proceedings may not be material in the assessment proceedings and that an independent enquiry was necessary. On these premises, the Tribunal concluded that the matter deserves a remit to the lower authorities for making detailed investigations and to pass a well-considered speaking order. However, on the basis of some of the books and documents discussed by it, the Tribunal fixed the ratio between the tax suffered purchases and not suffered purchases of arrack in the proportion of 41:10. In other words, the order of remit was hedged in by limitation. It is thereafter, aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated September 8, 1989, the State has come up in revision. 2. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader - Sri N. N. Divakaran Pillai, as also counsel for the respondent/assessee Mr. N. D. Premachandaran. Counsel for the Revenue produced before us the entire assessment records. We perused through them. The following aspects are evident. At pages 73 and 75 of the files, are found the inspection reports Nos. 07143 and 07144. Both of them are dated March 7, 1988. The recovery of a few documents and account books from the assessee's business premises and the assessee's sales tax consultant are stated therein. The statement given by the assessee before the Intelligence Squad is found at page Nos. 07143 and 07144. Both of them are dated March 7, 1988. The recovery of a few documents and account books from the assessee's business premises and the assessee's sales tax consultant are stated therein. The statement given by the assessee before the Intelligence Squad is found at page Nos. 97 and 98. The assessee admitted the offence and filed an application for compounding of the offence on May 16, 1988, which is seen at pages 99 to 101 of the files. The assessee has signed in the detailed statement and in the application aforesaid. He has understood the contents and affixed his signature in both. Both of them are in Malayalam. The request for departmental composition was accepted by the concerned officer and the offence was compounded in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh. The acceptance is dated May 16, 1988, which is seen at page 101. The sum of Rs. 1,00,000 was collected as per R.V. 48104/May 16, 1988. During the course of assessment, the assessee was directed to produce the accounts, as could be seen from the preassessment notice dated January 13, 1989. The assessee was given sufficient opportunity. The assessee asked for further time to file a detailed objection, by communication dated February 17, 1989. In the objection dated February 25, 1989, the assessee objected to the estimate. The compounding made on May 16, 1988, was admitted. But, it was stated that the compounding by paying rupees one lakh was done on the assurance that no further amount will be payable. The quantum proposed is objected to. The assesse did not produce nor did they offer any explanation for non-production of the accounts and other documents seized during the surprise inspection on March 7, 1988 and returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988. These facts, which are admitted or proved and discernible from the files stand out prominent. On the basis of these facts and other circumstances, the assessing authority fixed the taxable turnover at Rs. 54,08,070. A tax of Rs. 27,61,387 and a surcharge of Rs. 1,84,099 was levied besides interest. The assessing authority, on the above facts, came to the conclusion that the returns filed is unacceptable, that all the account books and documents were not produced and so a best judgment assessment is warranted and on facts determined the tax at Rs. 27,61,387. 54,08,070. A tax of Rs. 27,61,387 and a surcharge of Rs. 1,84,099 was levied besides interest. The assessing authority, on the above facts, came to the conclusion that the returns filed is unacceptable, that all the account books and documents were not produced and so a best judgment assessment is warranted and on facts determined the tax at Rs. 27,61,387. The assessment order dated February 25, 1989 was affirmed in first appeal, by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by order dated July 1, 1989. 3. A reading of the order of the Appellate Tribunal will show that the Tribunal was inclined to uphold the rejection of accounts and to further hold that a best judgment assessment was warranted. The Tribunal failed to advert to two important aspects : (1) Compounding of the offence by the assessee in the sum of rupees one lakh and (2) failure of the assessee to produce day-books and other account books and documents seized and subsequently returned to the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal was inclined to accept the plea of the assessee that the order passed by the Intelligence Officer compounding the offence was not communicated to the assessee and so it could not be said to be a valid order. Based on that hypothesis and the consequent disablement of the assessee to pursue remedial measures against the same, the Appellate Tribunal further held that the authorities below did not investigate in depth, to ascertain the quantum of suppression and so the matter deserves a remit. Even so, the Appellate Tribunal restricted the quantum of estimate to be made by indicating that the ratio between tax suffered purchases and not suffered purchases of arrack should be in the proportion of 41 : 10. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal totally ignored to give effect to vital facts and overstressed immaterial factors. Even so, the Appellate Tribunal restricted the quantum of estimate to be made by indicating that the ratio between tax suffered purchases and not suffered purchases of arrack should be in the proportion of 41 : 10. We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal totally ignored to give effect to vital facts and overstressed immaterial factors. The offence of failure to keep true and complete accounts, to take out registration and file returns, etc., were compounded in the sum of rupees one lakh, that the assessee himself admitted the same in his statement and in the application filed for compounding, that the compounding fee was remitted and a good number of account books, day-books and documents which were admittedly seized on March 7, 1988 were returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988, but they were never produced before the assessing authority, etc., were totally ignored by the Appellate Tribunal. So also, the Appellate Tribunal ignored to note (page 71 of the files), that the compounding order has also been marked to the dealer. The presumption is that the official records reflect true and correct details. If the assessee was aggrieved about the non-receipt of the compounding order, he should have taken proceedings for obtaining a copy of the order and pursued the matter. He did not do so. It is not open to the assessee to contend in collateral proceedings, that in the absence of the communication of the proceedings, relating to the compounding of the offence, the proceedings themselves are invalid. The only question that arose during the assessment proceedings was this : was there a compounding of the offence by the assessee himself ? That it was so, is evident from the files, the inspection report, the application filed by the assessee and the order of the Intelligence Officer which further shows that the offence was compounded. It is also evident that the account books and other documents recovered from the assessee's business premises and that of the accountant, were returned on August 2, 1988. The endorsement at page 76 of the files shows this. These factors should have weighed with the Tribunal to enter a definite finding as to whether the returns filed by the assessee and the account books produced are acceptable. These facts have not been adverted to by the Appellate Tribunal. The endorsement at page 76 of the files shows this. These factors should have weighed with the Tribunal to enter a definite finding as to whether the returns filed by the assessee and the account books produced are acceptable. These facts have not been adverted to by the Appellate Tribunal. After a definite finding as to whether the returns and the books of accounts are acceptable, the further question arises with regard to the quantum of estimate. The assessing authority called for the books of accounts and other documents, which were seized by the Intelligence Squad and returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988. But, those documents were not produced before the assessing authority. The assessee had no case, at any time, that the books and other documents seized from his shop and that of the Accountant on March 7, 1988 and returned to the assessee on August 2, 1988, were produced before the assessing authority or before the appellate authority. The Appellate Tribunal failed to advert to the above vital aspects. On these premises, how far the plea of the assessee assailing the estimate made by the officer is tenable, should have been evaluated. The Appellate Tribunal has failed to do so. On the other hand, the Appellate Tribunal vaguely said that all aspects of the case in depth have not been noticed, to ascertain the quantum of suppression and also adopted the rule of the thumb in confining the estimate to be made by fixing the ratio between tax suffered purchases and not suffered purchases of arrack in the proportion of 41 : 10. The Appellate Tribunal has done so arbitrarily and without regard to the admitted and proved facts in this case and by failing to draw the necessary presumption flowing from the various lapses committed by the assessee. The order of the Appellate Tribunal, read as a whole, is unsatisfactory and perfunctory and has ignored vital aspects, which we have adverted to above. Counsel for the assessee was not able to satisfy us that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the above vital aspects. 4. We are satisfied that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated September 8, 1989, is not in accordance with law. Counsel for the assessee was not able to satisfy us that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in ignoring the above vital aspects. 4. We are satisfied that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated September 8, 1989, is not in accordance with law. We set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. No. 520/1989 dated September 8, 1989 and we direct the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to its file and decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, and after adverting to the various records and other proceedings which are available in the files, which we have adverted to above. 5. The tax revision case is allowed. Petition allowed.