JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - While deciding T.R.C. No. 50 of 1994 today, we have already dealt with what should be looked at as a question of law on the basis of the decision in [1957] 31 ITR 28 (SC) (Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T.). It is not necessary to increase the weight of this judgment by repeating the same discussion again. Suffice it to state that we are required to appreciate the factual matrix of the present proceedings bearing those principles discussed by us. 2. The petitioner-assessee is a manufacturer of aluminium vessels and is a dealer registered with the Additional Sales Tax Officer, Chengannur. The assessment year is 1986-87. By the assessment order (annexure A) dated February 26, 1990, the Sales Tax Officer decided to make an addition of 10 per cent to the sales and 70 per cent with reference to the purchases. 3. For the assessment year in question, a total turnover of Rs. 12,30,402.06 and corresponding taxable turnover of Rs. 12,21,012.06 is written. This would obviously show that the difference is very little. The accounts were called and verified even then. In addition thereto, it is found that the business place appeared to have been inspected by the intelligence squad on October 23, 1986 and SIR appears to have been prepared. 4. With regard to the total turnover and taxable turnover reflected in the return, the Sales Tax Officer has given the following details : "Opening stock : ... Rs. 2,55,965.75 Raw Materials used ... Rs. 7,63,407.88 Purchase of aluminium ... Rs. 44,717.04 vessels. Sales ... Rs. 12,30,402.06 Closing stock : Work-in-process ... Rs. 79,805.74 Finished goods ... Rs. 96,053.89" The accounts appear to have been rejected as correct and complete, for the following three reasons : "1. Cash book was written up to October 21, 1986 only at the time of inspection on October 23, 1986. 2. Cash book in respect of M/s. Southern Metal Industries written up to October 20, 1986 only at the time of inspection on October 23, 1986. 3. Stock variation : 1. Aluminium ingots ... 1738.000 kg. shortage 2. Aluminium vessels ... 66.580 kg. excess 3. Aluminium circles ... 250.400 kg. excess 4. Aluminium sheet ... 292.000 kg. excess 5. Aluminium billet ... 2213.600 kg. short 6. Mfg. vessels ... 1090.900 kg. short 7. Cutting waste ... 518.500 kg. 3. Stock variation : 1. Aluminium ingots ... 1738.000 kg. shortage 2. Aluminium vessels ... 66.580 kg. excess 3. Aluminium circles ... 250.400 kg. excess 4. Aluminium sheet ... 292.000 kg. excess 5. Aluminium billet ... 2213.600 kg. short 6. Mfg. vessels ... 1090.900 kg. short 7. Cutting waste ... 518.500 kg. short" It would be seen that the inspection was on October 23, 1986 and on that day, the accounts were found to have been written up to October 21, 1986 leaving the situation as blank only for a day. This was with regard to the assessee before us. 5. The material on record shows that there are four sister concerns working simultaneously together at the same place and in regard to one of them - M/s. Southern Metal Industries - accounts were found to have been written on October 20, 1986, when there was inspection on October 23, 1986. Although this appears to be the second irregularity, a bare reading would show that it will not take anyone nearer the petitioner-assessee before us, because it is M/s. Southern Metal Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. and M/s. Southern Metal Industries, a common con-cern. Even otherwise, the position is the same that at the time of inspection, accounts were not written for two days. 6. With regard to the third aspect relating to stock variation, it is to be, seen that under section 27 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, a penalty to the tune of Rs. 11,420 was imposed by the Intelligence Officer and it will have to be emphasised that it was disgracefully reduced to Rs. 1,000 by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Alleppey, under revisional powers. From the copy of the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Alleppey, we find that the penalty was reduced in such a fashion practically reducing it almost to a nullity because it is observed that the stock of units was not properly stored and hence it was impossible to ascertain the physical stock of goods under different stages of the unit. This state of affairs rendered impossible the verification of the correctness of the stock as per accounts. 7. We have already specified the peculiarities of the situation that four industrial units were working at the same place and are engaged in the same activity, without any kind of difficulty in regard thereto. 8. This state of affairs rendered impossible the verification of the correctness of the stock as per accounts. 7. We have already specified the peculiarities of the situation that four industrial units were working at the same place and are engaged in the same activity, without any kind of difficulty in regard thereto. 8. When we see the above admitted factual situation, which is the basis of the initiation of the proceedings, we are reminded of the approach with a practical basis. There are rules and rules, no doubt, meant to be enforced and there is no difficulty in regard to this. The enforcing authority, however, is presumed to be practical not only in regard to the enforcement, but more practical with regard to the initiation of consequent proceedings of a penal character in regard thereto. We are reminded of an essay "All about the dog" (Alpha of the Plough) by A. G. Gardiner, wherein a lady passenger in a bus got into with a puppy with her causing the bus conductor to raise hue and cry going to the extent of stopping the bus and causing inconvenience to all the passengers, all of whom, perhaps, except the bus conductor were more eager to reach their destination, requiring the great literary giant to observe that even though a breach of the rule is an accepted situation, its enforcement cannot lose sight of the required factual basis of a practical base in regard thereto. 9. Regarding the irregularities that have become the foundation of the subsequent edifice of penalty proceedings and also resort to reduction and estimation, leading to the addition of 10 per cent to the total turnover and 70 per cent to the purchase turnover, we would like to convey to the authorities what we were inevitably required to observe earlier. 10. The Sales Tax Officer, in his order (annexure A), has pointed out the statutory provisions of rule 32(1)(i) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules requiring every dealer to keep and maintain a daily cash book. 11. The Sales Tax Officer has considered the order of the Deputy Commissioner reducing the penalty in a ridiculous fashion still to sticking to it to state that even then the Deputy Commissioner has not found out that there is no case of omission. 11. The Sales Tax Officer has considered the order of the Deputy Commissioner reducing the penalty in a ridiculous fashion still to sticking to it to state that even then the Deputy Commissioner has not found out that there is no case of omission. The Sales Tax Officer has not taken into consideration the factual peculiarities that the four industrial units functioned at the same place, which would result in a situation of difficulty for not separately storing the stock of these four concerns. 12. We have gone through the orders both of the first appellate authority - the Appellate Assistant Commissioner - dated December 14, 1990 as well as of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 321 of 1991 dated June 8, 1993. In our judgment, the statutory fact-finding authorities have also approached the question with a limping attitude to carry forward the approach of the Sales Tax Officer, even though factual peculiarities were placed before them for consideration. 13. Illustratively, the first appellate authority records the factual peculiarity that the stock of several items of sister concerns is kept at the same place and even a situation not ruling out overlapping as a result thereof. Precisely, this factual aspect that there are four concerns of the same commodity working in the same place finds mention in the order of the first appellate authority. In addition thereto, even the position that the Deputy Commissioner found it difficult as a result of this situation that each unit has not separately stored, to ascertain the verification of the correctness of the stock as a result of the above situation. 14. Even the Tribunal has not seen the inevitable legal inference from the fact that in penalty proceedings, penalty of Rs. 11,402 is ridiculously reduced to Rs. 1,000. Although the Tribunal has referred to the submission that even though the Deputy Commissioner has given an almost clean certificate to the assessee reading the stock variation, the Tribunal proceeds to observe that the stock was not separately stored. 15. For all the above reasons, it is not possible to sustain any of the orders. However, the fortune of the situation is that present revision case gave us an opportunity to convey our thoughts with regard to the approach, which requires essentially a practical and workable basis in enforcement of the statutory provisions. 16. 15. For all the above reasons, it is not possible to sustain any of the orders. However, the fortune of the situation is that present revision case gave us an opportunity to convey our thoughts with regard to the approach, which requires essentially a practical and workable basis in enforcement of the statutory provisions. 16. The result is that all the orders get quashed and set aside with a consequential direction that the assessment be proceeded with on the basis of the return filed by the assessee. Ordered accordingly.