JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - This is a revision petition by the tax-payer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. This is under the provisions of section 41 relating to the revision by this Court. Reading the statutory language of the section, the High Court gets power of exercise of jurisdiction if the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and going through all the three orders, we find that situations are consecutively determined. 2. For the assessment year 1988-89, in pursuance of notice under section 17(3) of the Act, certain defects were pointed out in the accounts of the petitioner-assessee. This was for the purpose of rejection of the accounts and resort to estimate of the turnover for the assessment year in question. 3. There is no dispute that from the reply of the assessee to the said notice, the only surviving defects are 1, 4 and 6 thereof, because the defects at items Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are satisfactorily replied by the assessee. The said defects (1, 4 and 6) are as follows : "1. Raw rubber purchased for Rs. 5,09,346.75 has shown as taxable at 3 per cent. This is not correct. In the case of raw rubber consumed, the concessional rate of 3 per cent will not be obtainable since the product manufactured will come under synthetic rubber product. So the purchase turnover of rubber will attract tax at 6 per cent. 4. Excise duty Rs. 59,046.26 will be added on to the cost of material to arrive at the cost of production. 6. Purchase of process oil, film, etc., consumed, i.e., 175 1/2 for Rs. 25,743. But no evidences have been produced. This will be assessed to tax under section 5A." The assessing officer rejected the books of accounts and proceeded to estimate the turnover. 4. In the petition it is urged in the following manner : "For the above three defects estimation of turnover is unwarranted. The worst that can be done is the levy of tax at 6 per cent on Rs. 5,09,346.75 against 3 per cent conceded by the petitioner, levy of tax on Rs. 59,040.26 on excise duty and levy of tax on Rs. The worst that can be done is the levy of tax at 6 per cent on Rs. 5,09,346.75 against 3 per cent conceded by the petitioner, levy of tax on Rs. 59,040.26 on excise duty and levy of tax on Rs. 25,843.09 under section 5A of the Act. But the assessing authority estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 26,12,390 as against Rs. 17,65,325.66 conceded by the petitioner." It, appears that the assessee approached the first appellate authority-the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. Although the copy of the said order does not form part of the paper book, the learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner has placed before us a copy thereof. The said order is dated January 21, 1992, after the appeal was heard a day earlier on January 20, 1992. Reading the said order it would become quite apparent that the petitioner-assessee made only one submission, that the exemption may be allowed for tax due from the assessment order for 1988-89. This was on production of a photocopy of the exemption certificate of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kottayam. On the basis of this production of the photocopy, the first appellate authority directed the assessing authority to verify the said certificate and consequently to allow eligible exemption from tax in question. The petitioner-assessee was directed to produce the certificate before the assessing authority to do the needful in the matter. Reading the entire order of the first appellate authority, it is more than clear that no other submission was made before the first appellate authority. Even though it was an order of remand, the assessee approached the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. By the order dated July 28, 1992 the Tribunal confirmed the said order of remand as was done by the first appellate authority. Even apart therefrom, the Tribunal confirmed the rejection of the books of accounts for the reasons stated in the assessment order. The Tribunal also endorsed fixation of taxable turnover as having been done as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Tribunal has precisely observed that the assessing authority has fixed the costs of production direct and then added 25 per cent of gross profit to fix the sale value thereon. In addition to that, under section 5A trading purchase and purchase turnover of rubber is also added. The Tribunal has precisely observed that the assessing authority has fixed the costs of production direct and then added 25 per cent of gross profit to fix the sale value thereon. In addition to that, under section 5A trading purchase and purchase turnover of rubber is also added. The Tribunal has specifically observed that there is no irregularity in the computation portion of turnover as fixed by the assessing authority after giving due consideration to the replies to section 17(3) notice. 5. The Tribunal has also endorsed the decision that the tread rubber is not mere raw rubber as sought to be contended by the assessee. For this endorsement the Tribunal has observed that the books of accounts also are clear evidence against the contention of the assessee. Illustratively, the Tribunal has been careful to observe that the purchase value of the chemicals to the tune of Rs. 8,88,242.80 and the closing balance of Rs. 1 lakh and odd clearly reveal that much quantity of chemicals is used in the production of tread rubber. Thus the Tribunal has considered the situation on factual merits that were placed for its consideration. Then the Tribunal has proceeded to endorse the consequences, in the event of the assessee being entitled to exemption on the footing of the production of the photocopy of the exemption certificate. Even with regard to the process of fixing the cost of production relating to certain items, the Tribunal has endorsed the approach of the assessing authority. At the end the Tribunal has endorsed the decision of the first appellate authority. 6. Thus the treatment of the subject by the three authorities specifically relates to factual positions. 7. The learned counsel urged before us that the assessing authority has committed obvious errors in the determination of the estimate. Apart from the position that the situation is purely factual in character, we would like to mention particularly the submission of the learned counsel with regard to the addition of the purchase turnover which, according to her, has been added more than once. Going through the calculations we do not find the situation creating any error which would be, of course, of a factual character. Considering the entire situation we are unable to exercise our limited powers under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revision stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.