JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - Because the assessee as well as the State Revenue separately approached the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Beach, Palakkad, two separate revision cases are required to be filed by the assessee. Although with regard to the assessment year 1987-88, the proceedings relate to the assessment of the same partner-firm, in the name and style of Jyothi Jewellery, Market Road, filling two revision cases is to met the technical requirements but for all practical purposes it is one proceeding and is being decided by this judgment. 2. The assessing, Messrs. Jyothi Jewellery, Market Road, Palakkad, is a partnership-firm dealing in purchase of old jewellery, melting and purification and in addition manufacture of new ornaments and sale thereof. The three brothers, K. V. Ramachandran, K. V. Damodaran and K. V. Bhaskaran are the partners. The assessment year was the year when the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 was in force. Taxable turnover of Rs. 5,89,155 was declared by the assessee for the assessment year in question. The Sales Tax Officer, Palakkad, issued notice for production of accounts and it was during this time that firstly on July 6, 1987 the Special Customs, Preventive Road Checking Party, Palakkad, in the process of enquiry questioned one P. V. Usman of Tellicherry from the Palakkad Junction, Railway station area when currency notes to the value of Rs. 4,99,990 came to be seized. He was interrogated and it was revealed therein that they were the sale proceeds of gold which he has sold to one K. V. Bhaskaran, partner of the assessee-firm. It was in pursuance of this interrogation that the residence was searched along with the shop which was inspected. In the shop there was shortage of 4,389.850 gms. of jewellery. In the search of the residence of the partner Shri K. V. Bhaskaran gold jewellery, primary gold and gold coins in all weighing 8,735 gms. came to be seized and in regard to the said seizure adjudication proceedings were taken up before the Collector of Customs, Cochin. The said adjudication resulted in the adjudication order dated June 13, 1988. 3. The adjudication order resulted in the confiscation of 5,744 gms. of gold under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, holding that the above quantity of gold was liable to confiscation. The said adjudication resulted in the adjudication order dated June 13, 1988. 3. The adjudication order resulted in the confiscation of 5,744 gms. of gold under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 71(1) of the Gold (Control) Act, holding that the above quantity of gold was liable to confiscation. However the balance of 2,991 gms. was released as the explanation that it was family jewellery which was found probable and accepted. However the option was given to the assessee to redeem the jewellery which was confiscated on payment of Rs. 1,50,000. Apart therefrom a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed, under the penal provisions of section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as under section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Personal penalty of Rs. 12,500 was also imposed on other partners Mr. K. V. Ramachandran and K. V. Damodaran. 4. Apart therefrom, the Intelligence Squad of the Sales Tax Department also inspected the shop on November 25, 1987 to find excess stock of 22.700 gms. of gold jewellery. With regard to this inspection it is pertinent to note that for non-maintenance of correct accounts, the offence was admitted and thereafter compounded. The accounts were scrutinised and thereafter notice was issued by the Sales Tax Officer to resort to the best judgment assessment on an estimated turnover of Rs. 69,47,290. For this estimation, the notice contained that the basis was two inspections, dated July 6, 1987 and November 25, 1987. This amount of Rs. 69,47,290, it is found, was arrived at by adding up the value of the opening stock as on April 1, 1987 and closing stock as on March 31, 1988 and thereafter dividing it by two. This is the normal method accepted throughout to arrive at estimated turnover and there cannot be any quarrel in regard thereto. Both through the department as well as through the decisions in regard thereto the result is known as the running stock and this was multiplied by 6 to arrive at the figure of estimated turnover. There are decisions with regard to the proper figure of multiplication in the matter of assessee dealing in gold and silver, either primary or melting or preparation of ornaments therefrom. There are decisions with regard to the proper figure of multiplication in the matter of assessee dealing in gold and silver, either primary or melting or preparation of ornaments therefrom. The explanation of the partner Shri K. V. Bhaskaran was taken into consideration and the Sales Tax Officer by the order dated January 31, 1988 demanded payment of tax of Rs. 3,76,697 and surcharge of Rs. 26,029 on the basis of this estimated running stock of Rs. 69,47,290. 5. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Palakkad, was the first appellate authority. Rejection of accounts as well as compounding of offence which were the basis for resort to the best judgment were upheld by the first appellate authority by the order dated December 19, 1989. However what the first appellate authority did was to reduce the turnover to four times the average running stock. Thus, according to the order of the first appellate authority the turnover estimated on the basis of multiplication by 4 was estimated to be Rs. 46,35,520. Accordingly the balance of tax and surcharge payable also as altered and was reduced to Rs. 2,02,643 and Rs. 14,425, totalling to Rs. 2,17,068. We find from the petition of the tax revision that out of this amount of Rs. 2,17,068 during the pendency of the said appeal proceedings itself the assessee paid Rs. 1,06,438 leaving the balance of Rs. 1,10,630. 6. Naturally the assessee was conducting proceedings both before the Appellate Bench - the Sales Tax Tribunal as well as the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras, in regard to the order of adjudication. 7. As stated at the outset the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was approached both by the assessee as well as by the Revenue, the Revenue being aggrieved against the reduction of the running stock. 8. Reading the order of the Appellate Tribunal we find that with regard to two assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, both the Revenue as well as the assessee appeared. Therefore the Tribunal got concerned with four appeals. However as stated at the outset the two revision cases before us relate to the proceedings before the Tribunal, both by the Revenue as well as by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1987-89. 9. Therefore the Tribunal got concerned with four appeals. However as stated at the outset the two revision cases before us relate to the proceedings before the Tribunal, both by the Revenue as well as by the assessee relating to the assessment year 1987-89. 9. Before the Tribunal factual contentions were raised, illustratively as follows : "(i) The statement of Usman is voluntary and true meriting acceptance and as such the imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000 on Bhaskaran is justified. It is upheld. (ii) The quantity of 5,744 gms. seized from the residence of Shri Bhaskaran and confiscated is annulled as there is no evidence to establish that these ornaments are made out of foreign gold. But the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 is confirmed. (iii) M/s. Ramachandran and Damodaran are acquitted and penalty of Rs. 12,500 imposed on each of them is cancelled as there is no evidence against them to show that they were privy to the commission of the offence by Bhaskaran." Submissions were made in regard thereto obviously relating to the estimate of running stock. 10. By the impugned order dated May 21, 1993 in relation to the assessment year 1987-88 (T.A. Nos. 928 of 1989 and 159 of 1990) the Tribunal dismissed them. We find that in the appeals relating to the assessment year 1986-87 the assessee got substantial relief and therefore the proceedings in regard thereto are not before this Court. 11. Once, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority rejects the accounts and resorts to the best judgment assessment and with regard to the rejection of the accounts, on admission there is compounding, the only question that remains to be considered is as to whether there is case for interference with regard to the quantum of estimation. It would be found that facts and circumstances of the case floating on the surface of the record, in fact does not even make out a case for interference in regard thereto by the first appellate authority itself. However the approach of this Court being of a restricted character by reason of limitations of section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, this Court has taken the view to leave that question as a situation of finality, the latest forum in regard thereto being the Tribunal as the last fact-finding authority. 12. However the approach of this Court being of a restricted character by reason of limitations of section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, this Court has taken the view to leave that question as a situation of finality, the latest forum in regard thereto being the Tribunal as the last fact-finding authority. 12. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that what was seized during the customs proceedings as a result of further enquiry on the basis of the statement of Usman could not be the subject-matter of levy of sales tax in regard thereto. On the facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel. The question has been agitated and on facts it has been established that the enormous quantity of gold seized from the residence of the managing partner of the assessee-firm and the nature of the said quantity would not enable us to discharge the factual findings of the sales tax authorities in regard thereto. It is pertinent to note that the material on record in regard thereto reveals that the amount of Rs. 4,99,990 found from this Usman of Tellicherry was the sale proceeds of gold biscuits sold by him to Shri K. V. Bhaskaran, partner of the assessee-firm. This was the part of the seizure of gold jewellery, primary gold and gold coins in all weighing 8,735 gms. We do not find any error in regard thereto, much less, left to ourselves we would have also recorded the same conclusion on the factual matrix. 13. Our impression is that even the first appellate authority has lean in favour of reduction of the estimated running stock when there are situations if applied to the facts and circumstances of the case that even six times will have to be termed as modest. As stated above that this Court has always chosen to leave matters of discretion to the fact-finding authorities. For all these reasons it is not possible even to contemplate interference under our powers of revision. Tax revision cases stand dismissed. Petitions dismissed.