JUDGMENT T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, J. - These tax revision cases relate to the assessments made on the assessee for the years 1981-82, 1985-86, 1983-84 and 1982-83. Assessee is the petitioner in T.R.C. No. 6 of 1990 while the Revenue is the petitioner in the other three tax revision cases. The assessee sells iron and steel materials produced by one M/s. Loharu Steel Industries, Bangalore. Assessee claims that they have purchased these goods locally from three dealers Sandeep Steel Suppliers, Cochin, Southern Steel and Alloys, Cochin and Rukmini Steel Industries Ltd., Cochin, in the first year and from these three dealers and from Standard Dealers, Palakkad, in the subsequent three years. The case is that these dealers purchased the goods locally from M/s. Loharu Steel Industries and that they have paid the tax due on the sales effected by them to the assessee. The assessee's case therefore is that they were not the first sellers of these iron and steel materials and that their sales could not be brought to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 2. The Revenue on the other hand takes the stand that the purchases effected by the assessee were all purchases in the course of inter-State trade resulting in the assessee being the first seller of these goods within the State liable to tax under the Act. 3. We are not stating in extenso the contentions of the respective parties inasmuch as we find that the Tribunal has rendered conflicting findings in relation to the facts situation for the year 1981-82 and for the subsequent years. In their order relating to the year 1981-82 which has led to T.R.C. No. 6 of 1990 the Tribunal has held that the facts and circumstances of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of one Super Steel, which was dealt with by a Full Bench of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 46 of 1983. In that order which is quoted almost fully in the order of the Tribunal, it has held that there were anterior orders placed by the dealer with the sellers and that the movement of the goods from Bangalore to places in Kerala was as a direct result of the orders so placed by the dealer. In that order which is quoted almost fully in the order of the Tribunal, it has held that there were anterior orders placed by the dealer with the sellers and that the movement of the goods from Bangalore to places in Kerala was as a direct result of the orders so placed by the dealer. As mentioned earlier the Tribunal noted that the facts of the assessee's case were identical with the facts of Super Steel and accordingly found no ground to deviate from the decision in Super Steel. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly dismissed upholding the order of the assessing authority and its confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. The Tribunal dealt with the assessments for the subsequent years by a common order dated November 16, 1990, which has led to the latter three tax revision cases. Unfortunately we find that the attention of the Tribunal was not drawn to the decision in the assessee's own case for the year 1981-82 with the result the Tribunal went into a discussion of the matter as if it was coming up for the first time for decision. Normally what the Tribunal should have done in deciding this question as to whether the assessee was the first seller in the State was to render a decision first on the facts situation in the case. Instead of that what the Tribunal did was to embark on a discussion of the law on the point relating to inter-State sales, making incidental observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 that the case of the assessee was different from those decisions. All that the Tribunal did was to observe that there was no evidence of payment to outside supplies and that the assessing authority was not able to import any contractual relationship between the assessee and the others. In that view the Tribunal held that the purchases by the assessee were local purchases and therefore they were not the first sellers within the State liable to tax under the Act. Needless to say this finding rendered by the Tribunal is directly in conflict with the decision they had rendered earlier in the appeal relating to 1981-82, where they had held that the purchases by the assessee were in the course of inter-State trade resulting in the assessee not being the first seller within the State. 5. Needless to say this finding rendered by the Tribunal is directly in conflict with the decision they had rendered earlier in the appeal relating to 1981-82, where they had held that the purchases by the assessee were in the course of inter-State trade resulting in the assessee not being the first seller within the State. 5. Both sides are agreed before us that the facts-situation for 1981-82 and for the subsequent years was the same and that the same course of transactions was being followed for all these years. But we are now faced with a situation where the Tribunal has on the same facts-situation arrived at a particular finding of fact for 1981-82 and just the contrary finding for the subsequent years. It is not possible for this Court to appreciate the evidence or to arrive at a finding of fact as to the nature of the transactions of the assessee, when this court is exercising only revisional jurisdiction, and the question whether the transactions in question are inter-State purchases or not is essentially a question of fact. In this state of the conflicting findings rendered by the Tribunal it will only be appropriate for the Tribunal to deal with the matter afresh taking all the appeals together and arriving at a definite finding of fact in the first instance as to the nature of the transactions of the assessee in relation to the disputed sales and purchases. Without such a finding being arrived at, it will not be possible for this Court to render a decision on the question arising in these tax revision cases. We are therefore constrained to remit the matters back to the Tribunal for considering the matters afresh, to decide in the first instance as to the nature of the transactions of the assessee and then to apply the law and arrive at a decision whether the assessee is the first seller within the State liable to tax under the Act. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of these cases in view of the conflicting findings rendered by the Tribunal in the matter. 6. One further question arises for consideration in T.R.C. No. 6 of 1990, namely, the addition of one-third of the taxable sales of iron and steel materials towards suppressions and omissions. 6. One further question arises for consideration in T.R.C. No. 6 of 1990, namely, the addition of one-third of the taxable sales of iron and steel materials towards suppressions and omissions. This addition has been confirmed all along by the first and second appellate authorities. The books of accounts of the assessee were found to be unreliable and unacceptable in view of the numerous defects, some of them very substantial, found by the inspecting officer on September 15, 1981. The assessee also does not canvass before us for acceptance of the books of accounts. He only submits that the addition is arbitrary. 7. The assessee's books of account were unacceptable for the reasons given in detail by all the three authorities. We may make particular reference to the order of the Deputy Commissioner where he has mentioned that while the purchase price of the taxable goods as per the accounts was Rs. 18,14,502.73, the sales conceded was only Rs. 13,93,731.30. At the same time purchase of exempted goods accounted for Rs. 45,30,215.38 and the sales recorded were far higher at Rs. 51,14,601.50. The authorities could not therefore find their way to accept the figures returned by the assessee as correct and rejected them. Counsel for the assessee contends that there is virtually a double addition to the turnover. According to him the turnover of the taxable sales returned was only Rs. 13,93,731.30 which has been enhanced to Rs. 19,61,070.98 with a further addition of one-third. But, we find no substance in this contention. The books of accounts were unreliable and unacceptable. There is no dispute that the total purchase of the taxable items as per the books was Rs. 18,14,502.73. Even this is not acceptable for the reason that the books are not correctly maintained. There is no mention about the alleged closing stock figures of which are not available. In the circumstances the assessing authority was justified on the basis of the information gathered from the inspection that the sales amounted to Rs. 19,61,070.98 based on the assessee's figures of purchase and the profit estimated, which is only 3 per cent. Necessarily addition had to be made because of the unacceptability of the books and it was estimated at one-third. 19,61,070.98 based on the assessee's figures of purchase and the profit estimated, which is only 3 per cent. Necessarily addition had to be made because of the unacceptability of the books and it was estimated at one-third. Having regard to the volume of turnover of the assessee as also the very substantial defects which have been noted in the accounts, we do not find our way to accept the submission that this addition is in any way arbitrary. All the three fact-finding authorities have concurred in holding that this addition was only reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We do not find any error of law in the decision of the Tribunal justifying interference under section 41 of the Act on this point. This plea raised by the assessee is therefore overruled. The tax revision cases are therefore allowed in part. The orders of the Tribunal impugned are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the question whether the assessee is the first seller within the State in respect of the disputed transactions. The Tribunal will deal with and dispose of all the cases together in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs in these tax revision cases. Petitions party allowed.