JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - By an order dated February 15, 1989 the Sales Tax Officer (Reserve), IV Circle, Kozhikode, for the assessment year 1987-88 assessed the respondent-assessee to sales tax on taxable turnover of Rs. 19,99,920. This was under the following circumstances. The assessee deals in jewellery business and had filed total turnover of Rs. 1,79,605.20 and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,58,669.30, claiming exemption for Rs. 20,935.90. It appears that on February 6, 1988 the Intelligence Officer inspected the place of business and on subsequent verification of the accounts the following features were noted : "(a) Day book was written up to January 1, 1988 only and each balance was struck. (b) GSII and OS 12 are not written up to-date. (c) Stock analysis of old gold ornaments and raw gold jewellery shown excess stock of 11,350 gms. of new gold jewellery. Short stock of 87.600 gms. of old gold ornaments. The above discrepancy was admitted by you and the same was compounded in a sum of Rs. 1,500 as requested by you." Thus short stock of 87.600 gms. of old gold ornaments was detected. 2. As found from the order of the assessing authority that the proposed assessment was communicated and in regard thereto there was no objection, leaving no alternative to the officer other than to pass the order as stated above. The first appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, considered the situation and proceeding on the basis that in jewellery cases the turnover can be estimated at 4 to 6 times of the running stock, the appellate authority found that the suppression is huge, unearth on inspection. The appellate authority by the order dated January 18, 1990 directed the Sales Tax Officer to estimate the total turnover of gold and silver ornaments at four times of the average running stock granting exemption on the second sale of silver ornaments amounting to Rs. 20,935.90. The appellate authority however deleted the turnover of Rs. 500 assessed under section 5A of the Act with regard to the stones as estimated. 3. In Appeal No. 106 of 1990 it was contended that the book results are rejected solely on the basis of a solitary inspection conducted by the Intelligence Officer on February 5, 1989. 20,935.90. The appellate authority however deleted the turnover of Rs. 500 assessed under section 5A of the Act with regard to the stones as estimated. 3. In Appeal No. 106 of 1990 it was contended that the book results are rejected solely on the basis of a solitary inspection conducted by the Intelligence Officer on February 5, 1989. It is further contended that the excess was only with regard to 11.350 gms. of new gold ornaments and 87.600 gms. of old gold ornaments. It was submitted that there was only one inspection during the year therein and this was what was detected. It was submitted by placing reliance on the decision that it is difficult to give a long rope to the assessing officer to enter into an estimate which would be wild, arbitrary and capricious. It was submitted that estimate has a basis of reasonableness with reference to the detected situation. It was submitted that the difference even on the basis of opening and closing stock as can be found from the assessment order itself would be 127.100 gms., as detailed in the assessment order. 4. In the light of the above contentions, the Tribunal held that inspection was conducted by the Intelligence Officer on February 6, 1988 in which stock deficit of 127.100 gms. was found and the situation was compounded on payment of compounding fee of Rs. 1,500. The Tribunal also has taken into consideration quantitative analysis of the new gold in the following manner : "Quantitative analysis of the new gold jewellery shown the following discrepancies : Opening stock : 1757.159 736.900 --------- 2494.059 Closing stock 1802.050 --------- 692.000 gms. Actual sales is only 564.900 gms." This was approximately valued at Rs. 43,000. On facts the Tribunal considered that wilful suppression cannot be attributed and could be also considered to be an accidental omission. The Tribunal also observed that there was only shop inspection and in regard thereto 11.350 gms. as regards new gold ornaments, stock difference could be located. On a rounded off figure it was valued at Rs. 23,600. In the above situation Tribunal reiterated its factual conclusion that there is no pattern of suppression. 5. Considering the situation, in our view as our additional reason it cannot be said that this shortage shown with reference to opening stock and closing stock of 127.100 gms. could be characterised as suppression in any manner. 23,600. In the above situation Tribunal reiterated its factual conclusion that there is no pattern of suppression. 5. Considering the situation, in our view as our additional reason it cannot be said that this shortage shown with reference to opening stock and closing stock of 127.100 gms. could be characterised as suppression in any manner. The Tribunal added up the above two figures to work out the quantum of suppression amounting to Rs. 66,500. 6. In conclusion the Tribunal characterised the method of estimation of turnover at 4 to 6 times of the average running stock as applicable to a situation exhibiting continuous pattern of suppression and not to the factual matrix presented in the instant case. 7. The Tribunal held that the estimation of turnover would be a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the actual omission and suppression of Rs. 66,500. 8. Taking into consideration factual peculiarities as considered by the Tribunal even though it is obvious that this amount of Rs. 43,000 could not be considered as suppression, we do not think that there is any reason to interfere in exercise of powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Revision case stands dismissed as above. Petition dismissed.