JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - In both these cases arising out of appeals by the dealer in provisions, wheat products, etc. and by the State, the question under consideration would be one and the same. The assessment year in question is 1989-90. In paragraph 8 of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the basis becomes crystal clear. It is observed that in respect of the alleged suppression of Rs. 79,39,257, the assessee has made a clear admission. Additionally it is also mentioned that the assessee remitted a compounding fee of Rs. 1,33,43,887. Let the suppression is an admitted position, no further things are required to base consequent conclusions on the best judgment assessment. The Tribunal is perfectly justified that when a situation gets admitted, contentions regarding the legal right of cross-examination pale into insignificance in view of the basic proposition that an admission unexplained by the person with regard to the contents thereof. 2. With regard to another aspect, the Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that it reply to the pre-assessment notice, the assessee has not given any explanation towards the alleged suppression of Rs. 6,22,240. 3. A perusal of the assessment order also shows that with regard to the five parties concerned with the transactions covering the admitted amount of Rs. 79,39,257 the situation is clearly spelt out and it is required to be pointed that in the representation right of cross-examination relates to these five situations only. 4. The Tribunal resorted to modified estimate in arriving at the figure three times thereof at Rs. 2,19,94,215 and out of that deducting the amount of Rs. 73,31,405 stated Rs. 1,46,62,810 and sustained the addition as against an alleged suppression of Rs. 85,61,497. A conclusion is reached that this addition covers the amount of suppression and provides an amount of Rs. 61,01,315 towards probable ommission and suppression. In the process the Tribunal has observed that this alleged suppression covers almost the entire accounting period showing to stock variation or any other discrepancy with book stock and physical stock. 5. Hearing the submissions of the learned counsel we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached in the process of the above reasoning. The learned counsel firstly relied on the decision of this Court in Kanjinghat Brs. v. State of Kerala 1993 KLJ (TC) 282. 5. Hearing the submissions of the learned counsel we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached in the process of the above reasoning. The learned counsel firstly relied on the decision of this Court in Kanjinghat Brs. v. State of Kerala 1993 KLJ (TC) 282. It must be said that the decision cannot be said to have any bearing on the factual matrix before us. The observation attempted to be placed for our consideration that an offer of compounding is admission of an offence and for that reason should be strictly limited to the actual admission made and no more would not require consideration for its application because the admission is with regard to the proceedings under consideration even in the strict sense. 6. Similarly reliance on another decision of this Court in Velimparambil Hardwares v. State of Kerala [1994] 92 STC 98; 1993 KLJ (TC) 421 would not govern the situation, where the court was concerned with the relationship of admission made in the compounding proceedings with that in relation to the assessment proceedings by reason of the two proceedings being distinct and different, leading to the factual situation before the said court that vague generations or evasive reference or casting doubts with reference to the contents of the admission would not be enough. The position before us relates to an undisputed admission. 7. Similarly reliance on yet a third decision of this Court in Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Law) v. P. C. Joseph and Brothers [1994] 94 STC 296, would not be of any help in view of the peculiarity on facts before us that there is uneuqivocal admission not at all attempted to be explained in any way. On going through the judgment we have to state that it does not speak of an admission in the context, but is concerned with materials collected during inspection. 8. Having given our anxious consideration, exercise of jurisdiction under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 would be more than difficult as the Tribunal has proceeded on the admitted position and normal and legitimate inferences drawn therefrom. The revision cases stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.