JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by P. A. MOHAMMED, J. - The petitioner is the assessee in this tax revision case which relates to the assessment year 1987-88. Annexure 1 is the copy of the assessment order for the aforesaid year fixing the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,34,329.65. In respect of the above assessment year, the petitioner filed a return declaring the total turnover of Rs. 45,47,185.97 and claimed total exemption on the ground that the sales represent second sales. Pursuant to the assessment notice proposing rejection of the accounts under section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 objections were filed on July 26, 1988. The assessing authority over-ruling the objections finalised the assessment. An estimated addition of 5 per cent of the total turnover was added towards suppression in the accounts. As against the assessment, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner restricted the addition to 2 1/2 per cent. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order dated December 8, 1989 dismissed the appeal. The present tax revision case is filed against the said order of the Tribunal. 2. Counsel for the assessee contended that the additions made in the turnover is without any basis. His further case is that he being a second seller the turnover involved in this case is liable to be exempted from payment of tax. He also pleaded that in view of the minor variation in the stock the turnover returned by the assessee should be accepted. 3. The prime point raised by the assessee is that he being the second seller the turnover is liable to be exempted. When such a claim is raised it is for the assessee to prove that he is not liable to be taxed. It is so provided in section 12 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. His further case is that there is only minor variation in the stock cannot be accepted because the assessee ought to have established that the unaccounted purchases or the shortage for that matter should have been from the turnover purchased locally. No evidence in that regard has been produced by the assessee. 4. The points raised by the assessee in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sreekrishna Trading Co. No evidence in that regard has been produced by the assessee. 4. The points raised by the assessee in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sreekrishna Trading Co. v. State of Kerala [1998] 108 STC 14; (1995) 2 KLT 255 . What is laid down in that decision is thus : "Under section 12 of the Act, the burden of proving that any transaction of a dealer is not liable to tax under the Act shall lie on such dealer. In the present case the records recovered during the inspections undoubtedly disclosed unaccounted purchases and sales during the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86. When the turnover of a dealer who claims to be a second seller originates from unaccounted purchases he can only be treated as a first seller in so far as the goods involved in such purchases are concerned unless he produces evidence to show that he is not liable to be taxed under the Act. In case the dealer establishes that his alleged unaccounted purchases are from the first seller who is liable to pay tax under the Act, he shall be absolved from payment of tax in respect of the turnover involved in such purchases". As stated above the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he is a second seller who is not liable to be taxed. Therefore, it cannot be characterised that the assessment made in this case is arbitrary or unjust. 5. It came to our notice that during the assessment year there was an inspection of the petitioner's business premises on September 28, 1987 by the Intelligence Squad, Pathanamthitta. After preparation of the shop inspection report certain records relating to the business has been recovered. The verification of the seized records revealed unaccounted sales on different date. When the assessing authority proposed prosecution proceedings, the assessee has filed a petition to compound the offence departmentally. Accordingly, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compounding fee in lieu of prosecution. That would sufficiently indicate that the stock variations reported by the assessing authority were correct and there was no manner of doubt about the existence of the irregularities pointed out by the assessing authority. 6. On an anxious consideration of the entire matter, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order under challenge. That would sufficiently indicate that the stock variations reported by the assessing authority were correct and there was no manner of doubt about the existence of the irregularities pointed out by the assessing authority. 6. On an anxious consideration of the entire matter, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order under challenge. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly confirmed and the tax revision case is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.