JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - The proceedings present a futile but rigorous attempt to run through the gamut of notifications, reported authorities and pendency of an unconnected matter in the Supreme Court, taking the least care to ascertain the jurisdictional requirement of the necessary factual matrix. 2. The exercise has brought us to a situation to find that the basis factual requirement is conspicuous by its total absence. The assessing authority has considered the aspect in its order dated March 20, 1985. The assessee a dealer in chicken, greenpease, stationery, etc. In form 8 annual return for the assessment year 1980-81 was filed disclosing total and taxable turnover of Rs. 21,39,604.40 and Rs. 83,343.01 respectively. For some reasons recorded in the order the books of accounts produced were not accepted. The question in this proceedings relates to the sales of meat supposed to have been kept in cold storage and thereby attracting levy at 6 per cent with effect from September 16, 1980 in view of the addition of entry No. 114 that came to be added in 1990 with retrospectivity from the above date. 3. Although not necessary the said entry No. 114 is to the following effect : Sl. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax No. (Per cent) "114. Meat kept in cold storage, At the point of first 6". chilled, frozen, dried or sale in the State by smoked. a dealer who is liable to tax under section 5. It is much more than interesting to see and consequently be on record of this judgment the approach of the assessing authority. For convenience the discussion is quoted ad verbatim as follows : "The next contention is that the assessee has sold only dressed chicken and that dressed chicken, that is poultry meat, which comes under meat. The assessee has cited the decision of the honourable High Court of Calcutta reported in [1973] 31 STC 474 (Aloke Chand Mitra v. State of West Bengal) in support of his contention. The gist of the decision is that 'dressed chicken is meat within the meaning of item 4 of Schedule I read with section 6 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and it is, therefore exempt from sales tax'. The gist of the decision is that 'dressed chicken is meat within the meaning of item 4 of Schedule I read with section 6 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and it is, therefore exempt from sales tax'. The assessee has not adduced any documentary evidence in support of his contention and hence deserves no consideration. As per entry 1 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, meat kept in cold storage, chilled or frozen and dried or smoked is taxable at the point of first sale at 6 per cent with effect from September 16, 1980. It was noticed that at the time of inspection of February 7, 1985 that two deep freezers were in use at the head office at Spencer for keeping frozen items. The contention that the assessee has no cold storage and no sales of frozen meat, also fails.' 4. It is thus obvious that any attempt to take advantage of entry No. 114 coming on the statute having force with effect from September 16, 1980, that again on the basis of taking advantage of inspection dated February 7, 1985 to find two deep freezers in use at the head office at Spencer for keeping frozen items. Resort is taken by the authority for a wild inference that during the assessment year which is as far back as 1980-81 that there was meat in cold storage and further astoundingly that two deep freezers were on the premises at that time on the basis of inference from the fact detected on February 7, 1985. The reasoning would show that to term such reasoning based on wild inference would only be a description based on judicial restrain in regard thereto. 5. This is in the context of the consistent contention of the assessee that he was a seller of dressed chickens and as such during the assessment year in question in view of S.R.O. No. 342/63, issued under powers of section 10 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is exempted in public interest, undisputedly. 6. The first appellate authority has also not considered the question in the order dated January 8, 1986 in any different manner. 7. 6. The first appellate authority has also not considered the question in the order dated January 8, 1986 in any different manner. 7. Perusal of defect No. 4 would show a contention and a situation that local sales of chicken attract levy at multi-point and as the said local sales are not ascertainable separately from the accounts, estimation to add reasonable gross profit would be necessary. 8. The appellate authority also without ascertaining the factual situation, particularly in paragraph 5 refers to the position with effect from September 16, 1980 attracting levy at 6 per cent and observe on the assumption that the assessee has sales of frozen meat and yet no taxable turnover is conceded. In the process the first appellate authority has observed that the estimate of turnover of goods at different rates is confirmed, to jump to the conclusion regarding the contention relating to the estimate of turnover on frozen foods as not acceptable. 9. The appellate Tribunal with regard to the question under consideration has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of City Cold Storage v. State of Kerala [1979] 44 STC 312. The Tribunal has reproduced the gist relating to what is meant by "frozen meat" and accordingly decided to delete the amount from assessable turnover finding the aspect in favour of the assessee. It must be stated that the Tribunal also did not care to ascertain the factual situation and has straightaway proceeded on the basis that the article is frozen meat and reached the conclusion relying on the above decision that there is exemption in regard thereto. 10. The present revision petition under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 also pins down the contentions by a statement that this Court [1979] 44 STC 312 in the case of City Cold Storage could not be considered as final in view of the pendency of the appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court. It is also urged that by reason of the introduction of entry No. 114 in 1990 retrospectively with effect from September 16, 1980 meat kept in cold storage, chilled, frozen, dried or smoked would be liable to tax at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer, liable under section 5 in an equally empty manner. 11. It is also urged that by reason of the introduction of entry No. 114 in 1990 retrospectively with effect from September 16, 1980 meat kept in cold storage, chilled, frozen, dried or smoked would be liable to tax at the point of first sale in the State by a dealer, liable under section 5 in an equally empty manner. 11. Perusal of the entire record displays as observed hereinbefore an attempt in infer widely on the strength of an inspection dated February 7, 1985 to imagine a situation that during the assessment year 1980-81 in question what was sold was not dressed chicken but was chicken kept in cold storage coverable by entry No. 114. Beyond these inferences of wild nature there is no material on record with regard to the article which is considered to be liable for tax. This is the reason why there is an indignation to ignore the jurisdictional requirement of establishment of necessary factual matrix. If this is the manner in which the authorities proceed to levy and impose tax merely on the strength of wild inference, all that we can place on record is our concern in regard thereto. It is important to note that but for entry No. 114 coming on the statute in 1990 with effect from September 16, 1980, the undisputed position is that for the assessment year 1980-81 the position was neatly covered in favour of the assessee relating to the exemption from sales tax and what has been the promptness of the authority is to jump for levy of tax taking advantage of the retrospectivity of entry No. 114 by an attempt to have a leap in the dark. For the above reasons yet on different reasons showing lack of factual material we confirm the order dated September 16, 1980 deleting the amount of Rs. 59,855.50 from assessable turnover. Revision case stands disposed of as above as having been dismissed. Petition dismissed.