Judgment :- K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J. The petitioner herein, a proprietary concern, is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessee is engaged in the business of sale of paints, hardwares, etc., at Ettumanoor. We are concerned with the assessment year 1987-88. It is stated that the business was started only in January, 1988 and so, the assessment covered only for a period of three months. The assessee filed the return in form No. 8 for the year and declared a total turnover of Rs. 4, 74, 985 and the taxable turnover as "nil". The turnover disclosed as per the accounts and the returns was found not acceptable by the assessing authority. Various defects were pointed out in the pre-assessment notice served on the assessee dated December 23, 1988. Amongst others, the assessing authority stated that the business place was inspected by the Sales Tax Inspector on January 30, 1988 and the inspection revealed variation in the stock in different items. There was also another inspection of the business place of the assessee by the Intelligence Squad on March 11, 1988. The physical verification of few items was ascertained and recorded in the S.I.R. prepared. The stock recorded, when verified with the accounts, disclosed discrepancies in various items. The assessee compounded the offence on payment of a compounding fee of Rs. 2, 750. The accounts and the returns were rejected. By the order of assessment dated January 24, 1989, the assessing authority fixed the total turnover at Rs. 8, 74, 639.62 and the taxable turnover at Rs. 4, 14, 316.06, rounded to Rs. 4, 14, 320. The total tax was determined at Rs. 40, 376.80 and a surcharge of Rs. 1, 665.50 was levied. 2. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. By order dated April 3, 1989, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there is no evidence in the assessment records to prove that the correct stock position or otherwise has been verified by the assessing authority on the basis of the shop inspection reports dated January 30, 1988 and March 11, 1988. By order dated April 3, 1989, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there is no evidence in the assessment records to prove that the correct stock position or otherwise has been verified by the assessing authority on the basis of the shop inspection reports dated January 30, 1988 and March 11, 1988. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner further stated that the statements filed before her at the time of hearing showed that there are no discrepancies or variations with regard to certain items and so, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present the case before the assessing authority. The assessment order was set aside and a remit was ordered. 3. The Revenue took up the matter in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam and assailed the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Tribunal referred to the inspections made on January 30, 1988 and March 11, 1988 and held that there were variations in stock on both the occasions. It was further noticed that when proceedings were taken with regard to the variations and other discrepancies that appeared on the inspection day (March 11, 1988), the assessee compounded the offence departmentally, by paying Rs. 2, 750 as compounding fee. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the difference in stock was originally admitted by the assessee himself and compounded and so, he is estopped from denying the admitted facts of difference of stock. In these circumstances, it was held that the assessee is not maintaining a true and correct account, that there is a pattern in the suppression, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order and since no material or other compelling factors were placed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to warrant an order of remit, the order of remit passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, by order dated January 22, 1991. The assessee has come up in revision. 4. We heard counsel for the petitioner-assessee, as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. 5. Counsel for the assessee argued that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in setting aside the order of remit and in restoring the original assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer dated January 24, 1989. 4. We heard counsel for the petitioner-assessee, as also counsel for the respondent-Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James. 5. Counsel for the assessee argued that the Appellate Tribunal was in error in setting aside the order of remit and in restoring the original assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer dated January 24, 1989. It was highlighted that the Appellate Tribunal proceeded on the erroneous basis that the assessee is "estopped" from denying the admitted facts of difference of stock, which appeared in the compounding proceedings. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue submitted that the business for the year 1987-88 itself was only for 3 months, that there were 2 inspections during the said period, on January 30, 1988 and March 11, 1988, that both the inspections disclosed substantial discrepancies in stock and suppressions and unaccounted sales in certain items, that the assessee himself compounded the offence consequent on the inspection on March 11, 1988, by paying a compounding fee of Rs. 2, 750 and that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in error in acting on statements casually filed at the time of hearing before her and holding that with regard to certain items, there was no discrepancy as stated by the assessing authority. It was argued that no relevant material on record in proper form was placed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner assailing the veracity of the two inspection reports and the facts disclosed in those proceedings and, in the light of these facts, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in error in placing reliance on the casual statements filed at the time of hearing which were not properly brought on record. Learned Government Pleader argued that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and in restoring the order passed by the assessing authority. 6. We are of the view that the plea of the Revenue should prevail. Even according to the assessee, the business was carried on only for three months for the relevant assessment year 1987-88. For that period, the assessee disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 4, 74, 985.54. It was the case of the assessee that there was no taxable turnover. Admittedly there were two inspections during the period of three months. The first inspection was by the Sales Tax Inspector on January 30, 1988. For that period, the assessee disclosed a total turnover of Rs. 4, 74, 985.54. It was the case of the assessee that there was no taxable turnover. Admittedly there were two inspections during the period of three months. The first inspection was by the Sales Tax Inspector on January 30, 1988. Variation in the stock of certain items was found out during the said inspection. The day book was written only till January 27, 1988. Though, admittedly, there were transactions even after that date till January 30, 1988, the date of inspection. Again there was inspection on March 11, 1988. Stock variation was noticed in certain items. Proceedings were initiated against the assessee for prosecution. The assessee compounded the offence by paying a compounding fee of Rs. 2, 750. Substantial variations in stocks of many items came to light in both the inspections. The above two factors, taken along with the other defects stated in the pre-assessment notice and in the assessment order, justified the rejection of accounts and the returns. The assessee had no case at all either in the reply to the pre-assessment notice or in the appeal memorandum filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there was no inspection during the accounting period. It was vaguely stated in the reply to the pre-assessment notice that the variations in the stock pointed out are not real or correct. It was so repeated in the appeal memorandum filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. There was no specific plea either in the reply to the pre-assessment notice or in the appeal memorandum stating that there were no inspections or that the statements contained in the inspection reports are incorrect or untrue. Both the inspection reports are admittedly signed by the assessee. The assessee did not put forward a plea that there are mistakes in the said statements. The assessee had no plea either in the reply to the pre-assessment notice or in the appeal memorandum filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the compounding of the offence was done due to a mistake or under peculiar circumstances which deserve to be taken into account to discard the statements contained in the inspection reports. At the time of hearing, the assessee seems to have filed a statement before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of assessment and ordered a remit. At the time of hearing, the assessee seems to have filed a statement before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of assessment and ordered a remit. We are of the view that the procedure adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was illegal and unauthorised. If the assessee wanted to introduce any new material at the appellate stage, it should have been done by way of adducing additional evidence in the appeal. Notice thereon should have been served on the assessing authority also. There should be proper reasons for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage. It is evident from the perusal of the files that no attempt was made to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, in accordance with law. No material on record was also placed before the appellate authority, which will discredit or explain or otherwise dilute the efficacy of the two inspection reports. Solely based on the casual statements filed at the time of hearing, without anything more, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was in error in ignoring the legal effect flowing from the two inspection reports. Prima facie, they are proceedings rendered lawfully by a public authority. The statements contained therein should, prima facie, be taken to be correct and true. It is certainly open to the assessee to assail the particulars contained therein. It is also open to the assessee to demonstrate by adducing proper evidence before the appellate authority that the statements contained in the two inspection reports are not correct or were made under peculiar circumstances, which would warrant their rejection. No such attempt was made by the assessee in this case. We perused the two statements filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. They are stated to be analysis. It is not possible to say from the above two statements that the details contained in the two inspection reports regarding the discrepancies are in any way wrong or were noted under a mistake. In these circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of remit made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner at her ipse dixit and in restoring the order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer dated January 24, 1989. We are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law to merit interference in revision. We are of the view that the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law to merit interference in revision. We dismiss the revision. 7. Before concluding the matter, we should advert to one aspect very much highlighted by the parties before us. The Appellate Tribunal has stated that the assessee is "estopped" (in the assessment proceedings) from denying the admitted facts of difference of stock in view of the compounding proceedings. We are of the view that it is an overstatement of the law. The compounding proceedings and the assessment proceedings are distinct and different. The materials in the compounding proceedings may be relevant and one of the factors which could be taken into account, along with others, by the sales tax authorities in the assessment proceedings. But it is open to the assessee to demonstrate by specific pleading and evidence in the assessment proceedings that the details or facts contained in the compounding proceedings are incorrect or untrue or the admissions and statements made in those proceedings were mistakenly made or rendered under peculiar context or circumstances. It should be so proved by cogent and substantial material. Vague, generalisations or evasive references or casting doubts will not be enough. We are unable to accept the plea of the Revenue that the materials or statements in the compounding proceedings will in any way be "conclusive" in the assessment proceedings. We make it clear that the compounding proceedings or statements or admissions therein will only be relevant, but not conclusive in assessment proceedings. We express our respectful dissent with the decision of the Madras High Court in R. Sundaresa lyer & Sons v. Board of Revenue wherein the learned Judges have held that the facts found in compounding proceedings may not be material in assessment proceedings. The facts found in the compounding proceedings may constitute a relevant material in the assessment proceedings, though it may not be conclusive. We make this aspect also clear. The revision is dismissed.