JUDGMENT K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. - The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner-firm is carrying on the business in gold ornaments in Thrissur. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90. The petitioner returned a taxable turnover of Rs. 54,35,472.50. The assessing authority rejected the returns, since irregularities were found out when the business premises were inspected on January 22, 1990. The average running stock was fixed at Rs. 24,69,420. The sales turnover of gold ornaments was determined at 4 1/2 times of the average running stock value. Thereby, the assessing authority fixed the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 1,11,12,390. In appeal, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the rejection of accounts. However, she modified the quantum and held that 4 times the average running stock value will be fixed as the total taxable turnover. This will come to Rs. 98,77,680. The assessee appealed before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal as T.A. No. 387 of 1991 praying for further relief. The Revenue filed T.A. No. 539 of 1991 objecting to the relief granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax - the first appellate authority. Both the appeals were considered together and a common order was passed by the Tribunal dated November 12, 1991. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed to a limited extent. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the rejection of accounts, but held that the turnover for the year 1989-90 can be reasonably fixed at 3 1/2 times the average running stock value which will work out to Rs. 86,42,970. The assessee has filed this revision against the order passed in T.A. No. 387 of 1991, which is the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Tribunal. There is no revision against that part of the common order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 12, 1991, rendered in T.A. No. 539 of 1991. 2. We heard counsel for the assessee as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue - Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. The Appellate Tribunal passed a common order dated November 12, 1991, in the appeal filed by the assessee and also in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. We heard counsel for the assessee as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue - Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. The Appellate Tribunal passed a common order dated November 12, 1991, in the appeal filed by the assessee and also in the appeal filed by the Revenue. It is in the said common order, the Appellate Tribunal observed that 3 1/2 times the average running stock value may be reasonably fixed as the taxable turnover which will work out to Rs. 86,42,970. In considering the assessee's revision, if the Court comes to a different decision, holding that the rejection of accounts and the estimate sustained is in any way improper and interfere with the said decision, it will lead to a conflicting state of affairs. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 539 of 1991 has become final. In the common order, considering the rival pleas put forward by the assessee as well as the Revenue, the Tribunal has stated that it is reasonable to fix the taxable turnover at 3 1/2 times the average running stock value, which will work out to Rs. 86,42,970. If, in this revision, filed by the assessee, we take a different view, it will lead to a conflict with a decision which has already become concluded in not assailing the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 539 of 1991 dated November 12, 1991. On this short ground, this revision itself is incompetent. 3. Even on the merits, we are of the view that there is no merit in this revision. The assessee is a dealer in gold ornaments. We are concerned with the assessment year 1989-90. For the immediate preceding year, the turnover reported and sustained was in the sum of Rs. 79,48,312. When the assessee's business premises was inspected on January 22, 1990 and physical verification of the ornaments were made, it turned out that there were discrepancies in stocks and unaccounted purchases and sales. Fourteen slips were recovered. The assessee compounded the offence departmentally on payment of Rs. 5,525 towards compounding fee. The 14 account slips recovered at the time of inspection revealed unaccounted sales of new ornaments to the tune of Rs. 81,156. The slips also showed that the assessee-firm suppressed both the purchases of old gold ornaments as well as the sale of new gold ornaments. The assessee compounded the offence departmentally on payment of Rs. 5,525 towards compounding fee. The 14 account slips recovered at the time of inspection revealed unaccounted sales of new ornaments to the tune of Rs. 81,156. The slips also showed that the assessee-firm suppressed both the purchases of old gold ornaments as well as the sale of new gold ornaments. In these state of affairs, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that no reliance could be placed on the book results. We are of the view that the rejection of the books of account was justified in law. 4. The only other aspect is regarding the estimate to be made. For the immediate preceding year, the turnover was fixed in the sum of Rs. 79,48,312. In spite of all omissions and suppressions, the taxable turnover was finally fixed, for the year 1989-90, at Rs. 86,42,970 as against Rs. 54,35,472.50 returned by the assessee. We are of the view that considering the huge suppressions in both the purchases of old gold ornaments and sale of new gold ornaments and other defects adverted to by the statutory authorities, the estimate of taxable turnover at 3 1/2 times the average running stock value is fair and reasonable. The fixation and the determination of the taxable turnover on the basis of the average running stock is one of the recognised methods. The Appellate Tribunal has given cogent and clear reasons and materials in paras 5 and 6 of its order to sustain 3 1/2 times the average running stock value to be the basis for working out the taxable turnover. We do not find any error of law in the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated November 12, 1991. 5. The tax revision case is without merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.