Judgment :- Mohammed, J. These Tax Revision Cas.es originate from the assessment orders under the Kerala General Salestax Act, 1963 (for short'Act') for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. These cases are filed by a partnership firm by name 'Sreekrishna Trading Co.' (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee') doing business in arrack and foreign liquor, against the common order passed by the Kerala Salestax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A. Nos 116/88,117/88,121/88 and 122/88 dated4-6-1990. T.A. Nos 116/88 and 117/88 were filed by the assessee against the common order passed by the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner in S.T. A. Nos 967 and 968 of 1987. As against the very same order, the State had filed T.A. Nos. 121 and 122/ 88. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal for the year 1984-85 (T.A. 121/88) in part whereas the appeal for the year 1985-86 (T.A. 122/88) was allowed in entirety. The appeals filed by the assessee for me aforesaid years (T.A. Nos 116 and 117/88) were dismissed by the Tribunal as per the common order referred to above. 2. The questions of law framed by the assessee for the years 1984-1985 are as follows: 'A. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that a clear pattern of suppression is established in the case of arrack? B. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not justified in interfering with the addition made in the case of arrack and in sustaining the assessment order? C. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in upholding the rejection of accounts? D. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in holding that the modification ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of arrack for 1984-85 is found to be without properly appreciating the gravity of the suppressions detected and admission of the assessee? E. Was the Appellate Tribunal justified in sustaining the additions made by the assessing authority for all or any of the reasons stated in their appellate order? Similar questions are framed for the year 1985-86 also. 3. When the above casess came up before the Division Bench, it observed that there was apparent conflict between the decisions of the two Division Benches in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala (1991 KLJ (Tax Cases) 665) and S. Valsala v. State of Kerala (T.R.C. No. 168 of 1992). Similar questions are framed for the year 1985-86 also. 3. When the above casess came up before the Division Bench, it observed that there was apparent conflict between the decisions of the two Division Benches in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala (1991 KLJ (Tax Cases) 665) and S. Valsala v. State of Kerala (T.R.C. No. 168 of 1992). In view of this, the DivisionBench referred the cases for being heard by a larger bench i n order to resolve the alleged conflict. That is how these cases came up before us for hearing. 4. Before examining the questions raised above, it would be essential to encapsulate as to how the assessment orders were completed for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. There is no dispute that both the orders were passed under best of judgment assessment as contemplated under S.17(3) of the Act. The basis for resorting to the said method of assessment is the shop inspection reports prepared by the officers. During the year 1984-'85 the shops of the assessee were inspected by the Intelligence Officer, Quilon on 15-9-1984. Similarly during the year 1985-'86 the shops were inspected on 25-3-1986. Though the assessee filed returns in Form No. 8 for the aforesaid years, the assessing authority issued pre-assessment notices proposing to reject the returns and complete the assessment mainly on the basis of the shop inspection reports prepared by the Intelligence Officer, during the inspections referred to above. Though the assessee filed explanations to the defects pointed out in the pre-assessment notices, the assessing auhtority completed the'assessments as proposed in the notices. As against the assessment orders for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the assessee filed appeals under S.34 of the Act before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Kollam. By a common order dated 26-11-1987 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the assessing authority to revise the assessment orders for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 in view of the directions contained therein. It was against the said common order both the assessee and State filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal as aforestated. 5. The main contention advanced by the counsel for the assessee is that the liquor is being taxable at the point of first sale within the State, the Assessee, who is only a second seller is not liable to pay the salestax. 5. The main contention advanced by the counsel for the assessee is that the liquor is being taxable at the point of first sale within the State, the Assessee, who is only a second seller is not liable to pay the salestax. It is pointed out that arrack is a controlled commodity and the purchases are made only from the State owned distilleries. He therefore argues that the additions made in the turnovers relating to the assessment years for 1984-85 and 1985-86 on the basis of the shortage in the stock of arrack noticed during the inspections madeby the Intelligence Officer on 15-9-1984 and 25-7-1986 are unjust and illegal. After analysing the explanations to the defects pointed out in the pre-assessment notices, the assessing authority added 5% of the total sales turnover of arrack and foreign liquor as per accounts towards the probable omissions and suppressions for the year 198*4-85. Additions were also made in items like empty bottles, soda water.soft drinks etc.. Likewise for the year 1985-86 addition which represents two times of the turnover involved in the suppression detected was made in the sales turnover of arrack and liquor as per the accounts. The additions were also made in the sales turnover of empty bottles soft drinks etc. The Appellate Tribunal has sustained these additions made for both the years except to the extent it relates to the turnover of bottles for the year 1984-85. 6. Thereis nodispute thatthe turnover relating to liquoris taxable only at the point of first sale within the State during the relevant period. This would mean that there will be a dealer who is liable to pay tax as a first seller. In order to claim the exemption from, payment of salestax as a second seller, the assessee must establish that his purchases are from the first seller who is liable to pay tax under the Act, Under S.12 of the Act, the burden of proving that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax under the Act shall lie on such dealer. In the present case Hie records recovered during the inspections undoubtedly disclosed unaccounted purchases and sales during the assessment years 1984-'85 and 1985-86. In the present case Hie records recovered during the inspections undoubtedly disclosed unaccounted purchases and sales during the assessment years 1984-'85 and 1985-86. When the turnover of a dealer who claim to be a second seller originates from unaccounted purchases he can only be treated as a first seller in so far as the goods involved in such purchases are concerned unless he produces evidence to show that he is not liable to be taxed under the Act. In case the dealer establishes that his alleged unaccounted purchases are from the first seller who is liable to pay tax under the Act, he shall be absolved from payment of tax in respect of the turnover involved in such purchases. But as far as the present case is concerned, the'assessee has failed to discharge his burden to prove that the turnover involved in the alleged unaccounted purchases are not liable to tax under the Act. 7. The assessee further contends that on the basis of the shortage in the stock of arrack it cannot be inferred that the petitioner has effected unaccounted purchases and sales. The counsel argues that since the petitioner being a second seller, there is no reason for him to suppress sales of liquor since he is not liable to pay the tax under any circumstance. This argument will hold good only in a case where the assessee had only the accounted purchases and sales. Inasmuch as the assessee had failed to establish that there was only accounted purchases and sales, the inference of the assessing authority cannot be said to be wrongous. The counsel for the assessee placed poignant reliance on the decision of this court in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala (1991 KLJ (Tax Cases) 665). That is a case where an assessment has been completed in the case of an assessee who is a retail dealer in foreign liquor by making 10% additions on the basis of shortage in the quantity of liquor. While allowing the Tax Revision case in so far as concern the addition made to the turnover of liquor this Court observed thus: "The petitioner is only the second seller and is not therefore liable to pay tax on the sales of the liquor effected by him. While allowing the Tax Revision case in so far as concern the addition made to the turnover of liquor this Court observed thus: "The petitioner is only the second seller and is not therefore liable to pay tax on the sales of the liquor effected by him. There is no reason therefore, for the petitioner to suppress sales of liquor inasmuch as he is not liable for payment of tax in any event. The discrepancy noticed at the time of the inspection is not by way of excess in the quanity of liquor, but only by way of shortage. From this circumstance of shortage alone, it cannot be interred that the petitioner has effected unaccounted purchases and effected unaccounted sales", therefore, it is evident that it is not a case involving unaccounted purchases and unaccounted sales. As noticed earlier, the unaccounted purchases and sales in tin's case have been sufficiently established as revealed from the records seized during the inspections. During the year 1984-85, there were unaccounted purchases in arrack, liquor, empty barrels, empty bottles, soda water etc. The Appellate Tribunal has found that there was unaccounted purchases without bills from outside source. 8. It is further argued that this is a case where there is only shortage in stock and for that reason alone the additions shall not be made. We found it difficult to agree with this contention because the additions were made not only on the ground of shortage in the stock of arrack but also for various other reasons as pointed out in the orders of assessment which were confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The case that the shortage in the stock of arrack was due to evaporation was found against the assessee by the Tribunal in view of the unaccounted purchases without bills from the outside source. Therefore, it cannot be said that the additions in this case were made purely on the basis of shortage. We have; therefore, no hesitation to hold that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Kumvila Chacko's case have no application to the facts of the present case. 9. The Division Bench of this court in 5. Valsala v. State of Kerala (T.R.C. No.168,of 1992) faced with a different situation altogether. We have; therefore, no hesitation to hold that the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Kumvila Chacko's case have no application to the facts of the present case. 9. The Division Bench of this court in 5. Valsala v. State of Kerala (T.R.C. No.168,of 1992) faced with a different situation altogether. In that case, during the relevant assessment period there were two inspections; first on 24-9-1987 and the second on 16-1-1988, In the first inspection, there was only an excess of 32 bags of empty bottles. In the second inspection, 6,530.72 litres of arrack was found short in the sales depot. When .the prosecution proceedings were initiated, the assessee compounded the offence departmental! y in lieu of prosecution by paying a sum of Rs. one lakh. The Appellate Tribunal as a fact finding authority limited the addition to one and a half times of the suppressed turnover and exempted 80% of the suppressed turnover. This court in the Tax Revision Case did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not find any apparent conflict with the views expressed in this case with mat of the Kumvila Chacko's case. 10. The counsel for the assessee maintains that the Tribunalis not justified in interfering with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In support thereof the counsel relied on the decision of this court in P.P. Raju v.'State of Kerala (1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 371). In that decision it is observed: "Before reversing a decision of the lower appellate authority a duty is cast on the Appellate Tribunal to meet .the reasonings of the first appellate authority and indicate its own reasons for the conclusion to be reached". In the present case, the Tribunal has examined the very basis of the assessment and also [he correctness of the modifications ordered by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the case of arrack for the year 1984-85 and reduction of addition made in respect of the year 1985-86. The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was found to be without appreciating the gravity of the suppressions detected during the i inspections. The Appellate Tribunal which is the highest fact finding authority has its own reasons for setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was found to be without appreciating the gravity of the suppressions detected during the i inspections. The Appellate Tribunal which is the highest fact finding authority has its own reasons for setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It is not for mis court in the revisional jurisdiction to re-appreciate the entire evidence in order to come to a different conclusion. We sufficiently note the findings of the Tribunal that the account books were rejected on valid grounds and that the pattern of suppression has been established in the case of arrack for the year 1984-85. Those-findings were entered on valid grounds. The unaccounted purchases detected from secret records and shortage of arrack detected on stock verification justifies such fundings. The additions made towards the sales turnover for the year 1984-85 cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In view of the unaccounted purchases and sales established in this case, we do not feel that the addition of 5% is in any way excessive or arbitrary. While determining the taxable turnover the assessing authority has allowed exemption on the second sale of arracMndforeign liquor. That only shows the taxable turnover for the year 1984-85 has been completed in a reasonable manner. As far as the year 1985-86'is concerned, what is added is the turnover representing two limes of the actual suppression detected. This also cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive in view of the various defects established in this case. These additions were found to be just and reasonable by the Tribunal and accordingly they were sustained. 11. We do not see any apparent error either of law or of facts in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. We are also of theview that the Tribunal has neither decided erroneously nor failed to decide any question of law attracting interference under S.41 of the Act. That being so, the questions raised in both the cases are in substance, questions of fact decided by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, both the Tax Revision Cases are dismissed. No order as to costs.