JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - With regard to the assessment year 1987-88 in relation to the assessment to Kerala general sales tax the petitioner-assessee, Messrs. Jyothi Enterprises showed the total turnover at Rs. 26,209 claiming exemption in regard thereto of Rs. 22,274 showing taxable turnover of Rs. 3,935. 2. The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in purchase and sale of LPG stove, purchasing them from the manufacturers, namely, Faridabad Gas Gadgets Limited on payment of tax at 4 per cent. 3. As far as the present proceedings under section 41(1) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, is concerned it is limited to two items, because the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) by the order dated July 28, 1989 in regard to the above two items made the following observations on scrutiny of accounts in the following manner : "1. The commission of Rs. 55,000 has been paid to one Srinivasan, i.e., Rs. 25,000 on April 3, 1987 and Rs. 30,000 on July 17, 1987 as per vouchers 7 and 98. The vouchers have not been produced for verification. The nature of commission paid is not ascertainable. The corresponding sale has not been accounted. The sale on this account is proposed to be estimated at 10 times the commission paid, i.e., at Rs. 50,000. 2. The following receipts are not explained : 27-5-1987 by cheque No. 447661 .. Rs. 3,100 From Sakthi Agencies, 27-5-1987 by cheque No. 446662 .. Rs. 3,500 Badagiri. 29-4-1987 by cash .. Rs. 4,100 From Ram Gas Agencies, " .. Rs. 2,197 Malapuram." " .. Rs. 1,096 ---------- Rs. 13,893 With regard to the first one the assessing authority particularly in para 8 of the order has observed that Mr. Srinivasan is the son-in-law of Mr. E. Nagarajan one of the partners of the firm Jyothi Enterprises, the assessee herein. The contention is referred to that this was purely ex gratia payment and is not connected in any way with the business as such solely because the payment was termed as commission for which there is no basis of assumption. In the similar manner with regard to the other item amounting to Rs. The contention is referred to that this was purely ex gratia payment and is not connected in any way with the business as such solely because the payment was termed as commission for which there is no basis of assumption. In the similar manner with regard to the other item amounting to Rs. 13,893 it is observed that if the amounts of cheques relating to the above amount are wrongly received on behalf of the sister concern Jyothi Traders also dealing in LPG stoves manufactured by the same company, instead of returning them they are encashed and therefore could not be regarded as sale proceeds covering the goods sold by the assessee. 4. These contentions are rejected by the authority holding that there is no material to probabilise that the commission is actually an ex gratia payment, and also the contention as regards Rs. 13,893 as impossible to be accepted as a mistake. 5. Even the first appellate authority - Additional Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax (Appeals) in the order dated August 28, 1990, has considered these aspects independently. It has also taken into consideration that if Sri Srinivasan is the son-in-law of one of the partners there has to be some material if the payment is considered as commission and not ex gratia payment. In fact the appellate authority has referred to the receipts issued by Srinivasan and Udayakumar showing that the amount received by them was towards commission account. The first appellate authority found the contents of the receipt in contradistinction with the plea of it being ex gratia payment. The first appellate authority has also considered the second aspect relating to an amount of Rs. 13,893 in a similar manner appreciating the importance of the mode of payment being by cheque in regard thereto. 6. Even the final authority on facts - Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam in its order dated March 29, 1993, has also considered the question, realising the importance of the contents of the receipts in the background of the relationship also. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the first person Mr. Srinivasan is the son-in-law of Mr. Nagarajan, the Managing Partner. It is also emphasized that from 1982 to 1985 both Srinivasan and Udayakumar were the partners in the firm of Messrs. Jyothi Traders, the sister concern. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the first person Mr. Srinivasan is the son-in-law of Mr. Nagarajan, the Managing Partner. It is also emphasized that from 1982 to 1985 both Srinivasan and Udayakumar were the partners in the firm of Messrs. Jyothi Traders, the sister concern. It is in this background the Tribunal emphasized that the word commission was used. The situation is of immediate inference therefrom. 7. Before us the learned counsel strenuously urged that much was expected from the Revenue, more than the situation being left to a matter of inference and course. The learned counsel contended that the situation in the matters relating to the levy of sales tax spells out burden on the department to establish the liability before expecting the assessee to offer explanation in regard thereto. 8. Basically the factual matrix presented does not afford any scope for adoption of such a reasoning. It is a matter of the contents of documents - receipts wherein unequivocally the payments have been described as commission. In the context of the business activity under consideration in these proceedings the word commission cannot be understood otherwise in any manner and never to mean ex gratia payment as sought to be contended. In such a situation where factually all that occurs is immediate, inevitable and necessary inference of the term commission in relation to the sales in the context. It is impossible to consider the use of the word commission as synonimous in any manner with ex gratia payment as is sought to be contended. In fact the use of the word independently in the documentary evidence and that too emanating from close relations such as Srinivasan, the son-in-law of the Managing Partner Mr. Nagarajan and Mr. Udaykumar who is none else than the brother of Mr. Srinivasan. It cannot be even imagined that the word commission has been used as a misnomer to the situation. Factually this is not a case in regard to any burden in the context of proof in regard thereto. The material is crystal clear for an immediate and inevitable inference that commission must relate necessarily in proportion to the understandable percentage of the amount of sales in regard thereto. 9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in [1977] 39 STC 30 (Girdhari Lal Mannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner) speaking about the burden of the Revenue. 9. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in [1977] 39 STC 30 (Girdhari Lal Mannelal v. Sales Tax Commissioner) speaking about the burden of the Revenue. On going through the said decision, it is not possible to know as to how it would be of any help to the assessee in the teeth of glittering factual situation. In Girdhari's case [1977] 39 STC 30 (SC) the question was of profits arising out of undisclosed sales of the appellant requiring two things to be established, in the first instance that the amount was the income of the appellant and not of the partner or his wife and further that he amount represented the profits from the income realised as a result of transactions liable to sales tax and not from other source. It is not possible to see how the ruling would govern the crystal clear factual matrix spelt out by the documents - the receipts. 10. Although from a different angle the Tribunal has also considered the above decision in its own way in paragraph 4 of its judgments. The Tribunal has considered that the assessee has disclosed in the accounts that the impugned payments were made towards commission and therefore the said debits entries are self-explanatory needing no explanation or any occasion in regard thereto. The Tribunal has further observed that the factual matrix is the situation of the natural inference relating to the corresponding sales. It is further observed in its pungent way that to understood commission as ex gratia payment is so hard that it is not possible to have a track on its consequence. 11. The Tribunal has also considered, with regard to the addition of Rs. 13,893 the vital aspect that the two payments are by cheques relating to Messrs. Jyothi Traders. It has observed pinpointedly that at least in regard to the payment received in cash the same could have been handled over to the sister concern in trust. 12. In view of the above situation apart from the position that the questions relate to the situation of finality of factual positions, even if they are independently examined it would not be possible to reach any other conclusion that the one consistently arrived at by the three authorities. For the above reasons revisions case stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.