JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - With the help of Shri Santhosh Mathew who has appeared for the advocate on record Shri Jaiju Babu, in accordance with the High Court Rules, we have gone through the three orders. 2. Before the last fact-finding authority the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, on reading the judgment we find that the only aspect submitted is that the addition is highly excessive and that too when considering the quantum of addition for the previous year. No other point was argued and before the last fact-finding authority, the proceedings were agitated on the basis of the rejection of the books of accounts and resort to estimation as a consequence as an accepted position, there being no submissions in regard thereto before the last fact-finding authority. 3. The Sales Tax Officer initiated the proceedings on the basis of section 17(3) notice proposing addition of 20 per cent on the ground of the rejection of books of accounts and resort to estimation as a consequence as an accepted position, there being no submissions in regard thereto before the last fact-finding authority. 4. The Sales Tax Officer initiated proceedings on the basis of section 17(3) notice proposing addition of 20 per cent on the ground of rejection of accounts and requirement to proceed on estimation. 5. The first appellate authority - the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kozhikode, observed that there is no serious omission except failure to maintain the accounts up-do-date and the office was compounded on payment of the fine of Rs. 100. The appellate authority has also observed that on verification of the shop inspection report several discrepancies in stock of vanaspathi, chillies, coriander, maida, atta, sugar, biriyani rice, etc. are found. It is also recorded that a comprehensive verification of the stock is not possible since no record is available regarding the quantity taken for consumption on each occasion. The authority however found that there are no glaring discrepancies in the stock of vanaspathi, coriander powder, maida and atta because the assessee filed purchase lists before the appellate authority. The appellate authority found a different position with regard to sugar, chillies and biriyani rice, etc. not being in conformity with the purchases. The authority however found that there are no glaring discrepancies in the stock of vanaspathi, coriander powder, maida and atta because the assessee filed purchase lists before the appellate authority. The appellate authority found a different position with regard to sugar, chillies and biriyani rice, etc. not being in conformity with the purchases. On the basis of this situation, although the appellate authority held that an addition is certainly warranted, 20 per cent addition was considered to be high and it was reduced to exactly 50 per cent thereof to 10 per cent. 6. This conclusion is on the basis of the reasons discussed hereinbefore. 7. The Appellate Tribunal - the last fact-finding authority has observed that nothing is brought before it which could possibly hold that the estimate or even the method applied is arbitrary or unjudicious. The Tribunal also did not find any error in the estimates or in the bifurcation of turnover assessed under section 5A of the Act. 8. What was argued before the Tribunal, as stated above was that the addition is highly excessive when considering the quantum of addition made for the previous year. The Tribunal has found that the findings of the first appellate authority are fair and reasonable. The Tribunal has further specifically observed that each year is a self-containing unit and the decision of the previous year would not govern the situation of the subsequent year. It is also emphasised that even the lower fact-finding authorities did not consider the position of the previous year rightly. 9. We find that the first appellate authority has considerably reduced the percentage of addition and reasons in regard thereto have been given. The Tribunal also has considered the submissions placed before it in regard thereto, specifically recording that no other aspect was urged. In these circumstances no question of law could be said to arise as has been held by this Court times without number. On facts the orders are supported by acceptable and sufficient reasons. Tax revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.