JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - In fact this revision case is tagged on with T.R.C. No. 202 of 1990, in view of the position that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum, has dealt with them by a common order. The Tribunal with regard to this considered two separate appeals of the petitioner-assessee along with two connected appeals of the department. 2. However on hearing the learned counsel for the parties we think it proper to decide the present revision case by a separate judgment. This is in view of difference in the factual matrix and consequential decision. 3. The present revision case concerns the assessment year 1984-85. The petitioner being a dealer in jewellery is an assessee for the sales tax under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessing authority rejected the books of accounts and the considered turnover. The assessing authority estimated the turnover at three times the average running stock value. This was fixed at Rs. 14,93,900 by an order dated February 5, 1986. There was a first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Quilon. The first appellate authority upheld rejection of accounts by the order dated January 13, 1987. However the first appellate authority reduced the turnover to 2 1/2 times the average value of running stock as against three times made by the assessing authority. 4. By the impugned order, the Tribunal considered the situation with regard to the present revision case. 5. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the position that in the case of jewellery business in a situation where the accounts are validly rejected on the ground of proved suppression, it is accepted that six times the average value of running stock as annual turnover, would have to be considered as reasonable estimate. The Tribunal has relied on the decisions of this Court together with this situation the Tribunal has also considered the factual aspect of the nature of suppression which was detected on the date of the inspection showing that the volume of excess stock was found to be 54.900 grams as found on the date of inspection on September 11, 1984. The Tribunal considered this as substantially higher turnover than what is originally fixed by the assessing authority. The Tribunal considered this as substantially higher turnover than what is originally fixed by the assessing authority. The factual peculiarities also reveal that even with regard to the previous years the assessing authority had an occasion to fix the estimated turnover at three times the declared turnover. In such a situation the Tribunal has also emphasised that the suppression thus detected on the day of inspection is not only substantial but is admitted by the appellant, consequently compounding the offence on payment of Rs. 7.50 in regard thereto. 6. In view of the above position, taking into consideration the provisions of section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, to the effect that the High Court can consider the ground when it finds that either the Tribunal has erroneously decided the matter or has failed to decide any question of law, interference of any kind otherwise would not be permissible. The decision of the Tribunal finding substantial excess found on the day of inspection, the fact that for the previous years the assessee had to face the same situation of his accounts having been rejected, together with the situation that excess was admitted leading to the compounding on payment of Rs. 750, reveal that there is no case for interference under the revisional jurisdiction. For the above reasons revision stands dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 3629 of 1990 dismissed. Petition dismissed.