JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - In order to find out as to whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the rejection of the accounts and addition of 5 per cent of the total volume of business amounting to Rs. 77,867.50 the assessee has approached this Court by this revision under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. We have been taken through all the three orders. 2. The order of the assessing authority - the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) has in details considered certain aspects. The annual return in form No. 8 shows a total turnover of Rs. 22,62,483.59 for the concerned assessment year 1983-84 and in regard thereto taxable turnover is Rs. 15,57,349.79. The assessing authority found difference on examination of the accounts and held that they cannot be accepted as correct and complete. 3. This was on the basis of five aspects specified in detail in the assessment order itself. The first one is non-accounting of 10 kgs. of washing soap compound. The second one is also non-accounting of 25 kgs. of soap compound of another quality between April 1, 1983 up to August 27, 1983. The third one relates to the purchase of cotton yarn from Tamil Nadu shown to have been included in non-taxable purchases. It is observed by the assessing authority in regard thereto that the said cotton yarn is taxable item at 4 per cent the sale value of the above which is to be estimated by adding 10 per cent gross profit which together would be subjected to tax. The fourth item is also shown as non-taxable relating to the purchase of plastic rope valued at Rs. 2,378 from Pune as per bill No. 212 dated November 30, 1983. It is observed that this also would be taxable in a similar fashion as regards item No. 3 by adding 10 per cent gross profit. The fifth item is as regards the surprise inspection by the Intelligence Officer on January 23, 1984 revealing variation in the stock position which has been specified in the order itself. The last item relates to the concessional rate of tax as shown in the declaration in form No. 18 even though it is not admissible. 4. The fifth item is as regards the surprise inspection by the Intelligence Officer on January 23, 1984 revealing variation in the stock position which has been specified in the order itself. The last item relates to the concessional rate of tax as shown in the declaration in form No. 18 even though it is not admissible. 4. A conclusion is reached that accounts are rejected on the basis of which a pre-assessment notice dated November 6, 1986 is issued. It is observed that defect Nos. 3, 4 and 6 do not support addition. Reliance is placed on the inspection report. Defect Nos. 1 and 2 are also accepted. The authority held that addition is justified and accordingly added the amount referred to above at 5 per cent as stated. 5. The first appellate authority - Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam, has observed that the assessee has not taken sufficient care to maintain true and proper accounts and factually the situation was not of interference in the rejection of accounts. Considering the volume of business amounting to Rs. 23,40,410.82, as held by the assessing authority, only addition of 5 per cent thereof amounting to Rs. 77,867.50 was not considered as a situation of interference by the first appellate authority. The appeal was dismissed. 6. The Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal also took the view that no interference is called for both in regard to the rejection of accounts and addition at 5 per cent. 7. Even carefully considering the situation ourselves independently the situation is abundantly clear that true and proper accounts are not maintained and the assessee could not even be thought of exoneration when the total turnover is in the multiple of lakhs for the assessment year and the taxable turnover is also quite sizeable in proportion thereto. Apart therefrom addition at 5 per cent of the volume of business also leans more in favour of leniency. If independently we would not think of any interference it becomes much more difficult in exercise of power under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. 8. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Rectification Petition No. 1 of 1993 and the order dated March 17, 1993 in regard thereto passed by the Tribunal. This was after the filing of this petition. 8. Learned counsel invited our attention to the Rectification Petition No. 1 of 1993 and the order dated March 17, 1993 in regard thereto passed by the Tribunal. This was after the filing of this petition. Even going through the order stating that as the observations sought to be rectified must have been on the basis of submissions in regard thereto we do not think that this would change the course of the present proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the observation in the order of the Tribunal, "Anyhow there is no canvassing for the acceptance of the accounts" which was the subject-matter of the of the rectification. We also do not take it as a concession by the counsel. Even apart therefrom the material on record as stated above does not persuade us, as stated, even independently. For the above reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.