JUDGMENT K. SREEDHARAN, J. - The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax. For the assessment year 1988-89, he furnished a taxable turnover of Rs. 3,03,172. His return was not accepted. The assessing authority estimated the taxable turnover of Rs. 13,53,850 and levied a tax of Rs. 85,366 along with surcharge of Rs. 5,463. The assessing authority estimated the turnover at three times the average running stock and also estimated the turnover of stock and for packing materials. The appeal preferred therefrom was rejected. In the second appeal before the Tribunal the estimation of three times of running stock was challenged. The Tribunal upheld the estimated turnover at three times the average running stock as per order dated May 27, 1992. Alleging that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 613 of 1992. That application was rejected. Hence this tax revision case. 2. According to the counsel representing the petitioner though there was inspection which ended in levying a compounding fee of Rs. 5,250, the addition made by the assessing officer is high. According to him the variation in the stock found out was meagre amounting to 20.850 grams. In the stock of new gold ornaments the excess was only 840.900 grams. On the basis of this it is contended that the authorities below went wrong in estimating the turnover at three times the average running stock. 3. We heard counsel representing the petitioner in detail. On the facts and circumstances of this case it has been clearly established that in the stock of new gold ornaments there was excess of nearly 840 grams. On account of this variation in the stock, the assessing authorities estimated the turnover at three times the average running stock. This assessment has been found to be reasonable by the Appellate Tribunal. It is not contended before us that the assessing authority committed an illegality in estimating the turnover at three times the average running stock. If that be the case the assessment so made is purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises for consideration. The finding arrived at by the assessing authorities has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is largely a question of fact. If that be the case the assessment so made is purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises for consideration. The finding arrived at by the assessing authorities has been upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal is largely a question of fact. Therefore, we do not find any ground to entertain this revision petition under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. In view of what has been stated above after going through the records placed before us and on hearing counsel representing the petitioner, we dismiss the petition summarily under section 41(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Petition dismissed.