JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - Aggrieved with the finding of the Kerala General Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, whereby the Tribunal concurred with the findings of the first appellate authority - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that no addition is called for in respect of the shortages in stock of Indian-made foreign liquor and arrack detected at the time of inspection, the Revenue has approached this Court under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal, however, considered non-availability of books of account in the business place at Pathanamthitta at the time of inspection on August 22, 1985 and non-availability of the purchase bills also together with non-availability of daily kurippu on September 12, 1985 at Kozhencherry imposed a token addition of Rs. 10,000 as sufficient to cover the said solitary defect. 2. The only question for consideration is as regards the concurrent position taken by the two appellate authorities that no addition is called for in respect of the shortage in stock of Indian-made foreign liquor and arrack detected at the time of inspection. 3. Factually the two authorities have considered the position in regard to the question of shortage. In fact the Tribunal has quoted ad verbatim the observations of the first appellate authority - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the impugned order. 4. The first appellate authority has observed already that the inspecting authorities having valued the shortage of liquor and arrack and the offence in regard thereto was compounded on the basis of irregularities in the stock and have excess stock of bottles. Secondly it is also considered that the assessee being a registered contractor of foreign liquor and arrack the position is that the entire goods are purchased locally from Government depots on payment of first point tax. In view of this position, it is observed that the assessee need not collect tax and no tax is to be paid for such sales and therefore even if the sales are not accounted there is no liability for the appellant for the exempted goods. A finding is recorded that the addition is made purely on sales suppressions and in this context it is emphasized that it would not make a liability on a second dealer. A finding is recorded that the addition is made purely on sales suppressions and in this context it is emphasized that it would not make a liability on a second dealer. Thirdly it is also observed that at the time of inspection in excess stock of any item of liquor and attack is noted in proof that there is unaccounted purchases from outside sources. Fourthly it is also observed that considering the huge stock of items in the shop the shortages found are nominal and negligible and the estimate is made for properly considering the explanations offered by the appellant in disregard to the nature of the business. 5. Apart from reproducing the above reasoning of the first appellate authority the Tribunal independently itself considered the position and found that only when shortage in stock of Indian-made foreign liquor and arrack have been detected no addition is called for. The Tribunal has noted in this connection that at Pathanamthitta the inspection of the business premises took place on August 22, 1985 revealing shortage of 1,435 litres of arrack. The Tribunal has also considered the other irregularities showing flimsy character of shortage by referring to the fact that 2,500 empty bottles and 500 caps were not supported by purchase bills. The Tribunal has also in addition emphasized that with regard to this situation of offence so compounded for a sum of Rs. 250 the Tribunal has been more particular to note that in the process of compounding this value of shortage. has not at all been considered which is a factor to show the nature of the shortage. Similarly with regard to the inspection on September 12, 1995 of the business place at Kozhencherry shortage of 7 bottles of brandy was the result, and the offence was departmentally compounded for Rs. 115. With regard to the inspection of January 25, 1985 ar Ranni the shortage also was departmentally compounded for Rs. 1,000. The Tribunal has emphasized that from the entire situation shortage in stock of Indian-made foreign liquor and arrack only have been detected and the entire sales turnover considered by the assessee have been allowed for exemption as second sales. 6. Considering these aspects the Tribunal found it obvious from the position that the purchases are effected from the registered dealers within the State and thus suffer tax already leaving the position that the assessee is only a second seller. 6. Considering these aspects the Tribunal found it obvious from the position that the purchases are effected from the registered dealers within the State and thus suffer tax already leaving the position that the assessee is only a second seller. The Tribunal has inferred necessarily as a result of the above position that on all accounted purchases which have suffered tax leaving no room for inference for loss of Revenue attributable to suppressions alleged. The Tribunal was careful enough to observe that the situation would have been entirely different had excess stock been detected which would point to purchase suppression. In that event the position of the assessee would have been different. The Tribunal considered the explanation of the assessee with regard to the shortage in stock of arrack. The explanation is quoted ad verbatim in the order of the Tribunal. 7. If at all for all these reasons the two authorities have considered the question of addition due to shortage, a question wholly factual, it is more than difficult to think of interference on the basis that the question is erroneously considered. Even the question that is framed in this revision case does not speak anything than the factual aspects of the situation. For the above reasons revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.