ORDER S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. - These petitions are directed against a common order made by the Tribunal in relation to assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The petitioner is a retail dealer. He declared total and taxable turnover as : 1987-88 1988-89 Rs. 10,31,614.17 Rs. 3,27,695.29 Rs. 1,31,433 Rs. 43,415 The assessing officer rejected the declared turnovers on the basis that classified sales account had not been properly maintained and determined the turnovers as under : 1987-88 1988-89 Rs. 10,43,402 Rs. 3,29,500 Rs. 1,52,682 Rs. 47,350 Aggrieved by that assessment order the petitioner preferred appeals before the appellate authority unsuccessfully and the matter was carried on to the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having dismissed the same, the petitioner has preferred these petitions. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are that : (1) The assessing authority was not justified in rejecting the account books and other material furnished by the petitioner pursuant to the notice issued by the assessing authority to finalise the assessments. (2) Wheat and wheat products are both declared goods on which no turnover tax is payable. (3) The additions on the declared turnover is not based on any material. (4) The gross profits added at 20 per cent to general goods and dyes; 29.25 per cent to tea and 10 per cent to second dealer purchases is not correct. The Tribunal considered the question whether there were classified purchase accounts for the relevant years or any other material to accept the returns filed by the assessee. On examination of the material, the Tribunal found that no tangible material was available. The Tribunal and other authorities have taken into consideration the nature of the trade that has been carried on and adopted the gross profit at 20 per cent in the retail trade on the basis of purchases plus 15 per cent gross profit which had been determined for the previous year, which has been accepted by the petitioner and in regard to tea gross profit is adopted at 20.4 per cent considering the fact that the commodity was liable to sales tax at 14.25 per cent. The petitioner being only a retail dealer he had not collected any amount by way of sales tax, therefore, the claim for deduction was not justified merely because sales turnover has been arrived on the basis of purchases plus addition of gross profit taking into consideration after purchase expenses and the liability towards sales tax which the dealer has to bear. Thus, the 1st, 3rd and 4th contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner stand rejected. So far as the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, that the decision in New Swastik Flour Mills [1992] 84 STC 49 (Kar) would be applicable to the facts of the case, would not be correct inasmuch as the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 91 STC 408 has reversed the decision of this Court in the aforesaid case. Therefore, that contention also does not survive for consideration. In that view of the matter we have no hesitation to dismiss these petitions. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.