Judgment :- K.S. Paripoornan, J. The revision petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The respondent is the Revenue. We are concerned with the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee is running an oil mill. He states that he has also a mill for grinding wheat and hulling paddy. For the year 1983-84, the assessee reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 11,35,641.96. The accounts and the return submitted by the assessee were rejected. A best judgment assessment was made. The taxable turnover was fixed at Rs. 19,77,790. A total tax of Rs. 50,044.41 and a surcharge of Rs. 4,003.55 were demanded. The accounts were rejected for eight reasons. The business premises of the assessee was inspected on April 21, 1983. The SIR prepared by the Intelligence Wing when compared with the accounts showed discrepancy. The accounts did not show any purchase of gum for crushing copra. As per Invoice No. 1773 dated August 25,1983, the assessee has despatched to Cochin 11.65 quintals C.N. Oil while the opening stock was only 9.70 quintals. There was an excess of 1.95 quintals of C.N. oil. The meter card showing consumption of electricity was not produced. The assessee also did not maintain a register showing the particulars of persons who availed of the- facility of job work or the bills issued for collecting job work charges. The correctness thereof could not be verified. The Sales Tax Officer also found that the quantity of paddy hulled and wheat processed is very huge and there is no probability of such huge quantity of paddy and wheat being processed in that locality. After allowing a reasonable amount for electrical energy, for paddy hulling and wheat grinding and light, balance of electrical energy was treated as the quantity required for crushing copra. 81/2 units per quintal was allowed. The estimate was made on that basis. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the rejection of accounts and the rejection of return and held that a best judgment assessment was called for in this case. However, in making the estimate, he allowed 10 units of electrical energy for crushing one quintal of copra. Appropriate relief was given on that basis and modification in the estimate was made. 2. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, in making the estimate, he allowed 10 units of electrical energy for crushing one quintal of copra. Appropriate relief was given on that basis and modification in the estimate was made. 2. The assessee as well as the Revenue filed appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal filed by the Revenue is T.A.No. 479 of 1988 and the appeal filed by the assessee is T.A.No. 25 of 1989. The above appeals were considered together and a common order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal, dated May 14,1990. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the modification effected by the first appellate authority was assailed. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the quantum sustained by the the appellate authority was questioned. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. So also, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The assessee has filed this revision against the common order so passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated May 14, 1990, in T.A.No. 479 of 1988 (the appeal filed by the revenue). No revision is filed against the dismissal of the assessee's appeal (T.A.No. 25 of 1989). 3. We heard counsel for the assessee Mr.N.D. Premachandran, as also counsel for the Revenue - Senior Government Pleader Mr. V.C. James. 4. Counsel for the respondent/ Revenue submitted that in this revision filed against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal (T.A.No. 479 of 1988), the plea made by the assessee against the rejection of accounts and the quantum of estimate made cannot be assailed. In other words, it was argued that the assessee is not aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue. If at all, the assessee is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal (T.A.No. 25 of 1989). No revision is filed from the common order relating to T.A.No. 25 of 1989. It was further argued that two revisions should have been filed. It was not done. At any rate, the failure to file a revision dismissing the assessee's appeal (T.A.No. 25 of 1989) is fatal. 5. On the merits, the main plea of the assessee was that the accounts were rejected on flimsy grounds. It was further argued that the Appellate Tribunal erred in not entering a finding with regard to the consumption of energy for job works (de-husking paddy and grinding wheat). 5. On the merits, the main plea of the assessee was that the accounts were rejected on flimsy grounds. It was further argued that the Appellate Tribunal erred in not entering a finding with regard to the consumption of energy for job works (de-husking paddy and grinding wheat). Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Appellate Tribunal, in the common order, having sustained the rejection of accounts, in para.6, clearly held that the modification effected by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) -first appellate authority-was justified. The Appellate Tribunal also upheld the rejection of accounts and also the estimate sustained by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in the assessee's appeal (para.7). On the merits, the order of the Appellate Tribunal does not disclose any error of law. The Tribunal also did not fail to decide any question of law. 6. On hearing the rival pleas urged before us, we arc of the view that the revision filed by the assessee should fail for more reasons than one. The Appellate Tribunal passed a common order dated May 14, 1990, in the two appeals - one filed by the Revenue and the other filed by the assessee. It was in the assessee's appeal the rejection of his accounts and the quantum of estimate sustained by the Deputy Commissioner was assailed. No revision is filed from the order of the Tribunal rejecting the assessee's said appeal (T.A.No. 25 of 1989). That portion of the common order has become final and conclusive. On the other hand, the revision is filed from that portion of the common order rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue (T.A. No. 479 of 1988). Therein the only question was whether the modification ordered by the first appellate authority was justified. The assessee is not- aggrieved or prejudiced by the common order in so far as it relates to the dismissal of Revenue's appeal (T. A.No. 479 of 1988). This revision filed against the dismissal of T.A.No. 479 of 1958 is, on that ground unsustainable. 7. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal filed by the Revenue and also the appeal filed by the assessee, by a common order dated May 14, 1990. In the said common order the plea of the assessee, that the rejection of accounts was improper and the estimate made was arbitrary, were negatived. The said findings formed part of the common order in both the appeals. In the said common order the plea of the assessee, that the rejection of accounts was improper and the estimate made was arbitrary, were negatived. The said findings formed part of the common order in both the appeals. No revision is' filed from T.A.No.25 of 1989 (the appeal filed by the assessee ). In fact, technically there should have been two revisions, at any rate, at least a revision against the dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee (T.A.No. 25 of 1989). It is significantly absent. On the ground, the present revision is un sustainable. 8. We are unable to accept the plea of the assessee's counsel, that the mention of T.A.No. 479 of 1988 in the body of the memorandum of revision is only a mistake. Even, so, the mistake should have been rectified, by filing a proper petition. No such step was taken. In the absence of any rectification, it is idle to contend that specification of the revision as one filed against T.A.No. 479 of 1988 is only a mistake, cannot be countenanced. We repel the said plea. 9. We are of the view, that even on the merits, the plea of the assessee should fail. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in para.2 of its order, adverted to the fact. In para.5 of the order, the Appellate Tribunal highlighted the grounds which resulted in rejection of accounts. The inspection made on April 21,1983, disclosed discrepancy in accounts. Consignment of C.N. oil to Cochin was much more than the stock held on August 25,1983. Primary detaits in respect of paddy hulling and wheat grinding were not available. No manufacturing register was maintained. The Appellate Tribunal held' that the rejection of accounts, in the circumstances, was justified. It also held that the estimate made tin the basis of current consumption employed by the assessing authority is an accepted method in a case where accounts are rejected. In the absence of meter card or necessary detaits, the distribution of total consumption between different heads on an estimate basis was found to be proper. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] has reasonably modified the current rale and the average market price adopted by the assessing authority. The estimate as sustained by the first appellate authority was confirmed. The Appellate Tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] has reasonably modified the current rale and the average market price adopted by the assessing authority. The estimate as sustained by the first appellate authority was confirmed. When the accounts and returns of the dealer arc rejected on proper grounds, the estimate to be made in a particular case is largely a question of fact. The Appellate Tribunal has given cogent reasons for rejection of accounts. It has also adverted to relevant and basic materials in sustaining the estimate as modified by the first appellate authority. 10. We see no error of law in the common order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The revision is without merit. It is dismissed.