JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – This is a tax revision case filed by the petitioner under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessee is the petitioner. The State of Kerala is the respondent. The assessment year concerned is 1989-90. 2. The petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of medicines. The company has a branch at Ernakulam. The stocks required for sale at the Ernakulam branch are received by transfer from the head office at Bangalore. It is an assessee on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax Office, Special Circle-I, Ernakulam. For the assessment year 1989-90 the petitioner filed a return declaring a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 2,40,36,961.02 and Rs. 2,37,64,324.60 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the return and accounts and completed the assessment on best judgment basis estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 2,37,64,324.60. The accounts were rejected on the ground that the officials of the Inter-State Investigation Cell intercepted lorry No. KRC 2973 at Kanakary in Kottayam District and found that medicines worth Rs. 3,05,576.14 consigned form Bangalore to Ernakulam as evidenced by the documents covering the goods under transport were being transported beyond Kottayam towards Trivandrum and that the officers suspected the bona fides of the transport and collected an amount of Rs. 45,837 from the driver of the vehicle under section 29A(2) of the Act. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry) imposed a penalty equal to the amount of security as the petitioner-company failed to respond to the notice issued. It is on the basis of the penalty imposed under section 29A of the Act that the assessing authority estimated the taxable turnover by adding five times of the alleged purchase suppression of Rs. 3,05,576.14. 3. On appeal by the petitioner, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam, sustained the rejection of accounts, but reduced the addition to two times the purchase value of the goods transported. On further appeal by the petitioner, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, further modified the assessment by limiting the addition to the actual amount of suppression. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in revision. 4. On further appeal by the petitioner, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, further modified the assessment by limiting the addition to the actual amount of suppression. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in revision. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been maintaining regular accounts in respect of all the transactions, that the assessing authority has not found any irregularity in the accounts maintained by the petitioner and that the only irregularity alleged is the detention of the goods carried in lorry No. KRC 2073 at Kanakary in Kottayam by the Inter-State Investigation Cell and the imposition of penalty under section 29A of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that the goods were despatched from Bangalore to Ernakulam through M/s. Raj Kamal Transport, which is a public transport organisation. The counsel also submitted that it appears that the vehicle contained some contraband goods, which was being carried, which the transporters wanted to unload at the earliest for their own safety, and it was in those circumstances that the driver without even the knowledge of the petitioner-company paid the security and got the vehicle and goods released. Learned counsel also submitted that the notice issued by the enquiry officer to the petitioner-company was taken by the transporters with the promise of settling the matter on their own responsibility and it is in those circumstances the penalty was imposed without any active participation of the petitioner-company. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner-company had properly accounted the goods on receipt and the turnover of the said goods form part of the turnover disclosed in the return on which tax has been duly paid. The penalty imposed in the name of the petitioner was met by the transporting company out of its own funds and therefore it has no relevance in adjudicating the correctness of the accounts. He accordingly submitted that in the absence of any irregularity other than the imposition of penalty there is absolutely no justification for rejecting the accounts and in estimating the turnover on best judgment basis. Learned counsel accordingly pleaded for deletion of the addition sustained by the Tribunal. 5. He accordingly submitted that in the absence of any irregularity other than the imposition of penalty there is absolutely no justification for rejecting the accounts and in estimating the turnover on best judgment basis. Learned counsel accordingly pleaded for deletion of the addition sustained by the Tribunal. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent strenuously contended that the petitioner had diverted the goods consigned to Ernakulam to a different destination with the deliberate intention of evading the tax due on the said consignment. According to him, but for the interception of lorry No. KRC 2073 by the Inter-State Investigation Cell at Kanakary in Kottayam the said consignment would have escaped the levy of tax under the Act since the said transaction would not have found a place in the accounts of the petitioner. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the Sales Tax Officer (Enquiry), conducted further investigation as contemplated under section 29A of the Act with notice and opportunity to the petitioner and imposed a penalty of Rs. 45,837, which was paid by the petitioner without demur. He therefore submitted that the addition sustained by the Tribunal was perfectly justifiable. 6. We have considered the matter. The only ground on which the assessing authority has rejected the accounts and estimated the turnover on best judgment assessment is the imposition of penalty under section 29A of the Act in respect of a consignment of H.L. medicines worth Rs. 3,05,576.14 transported from head office at Bangalore to petitioner's premises at Ernakulam and detained by the Inter-State Investigation Cell at Kanakary in Kottayam on January 30, 1990. The petitioner had stated that the consignment in question was transported through M/s. Raj Kamal Transport, which is a public transport organisation and that the consignment was carrying goods belonging to others also. If the transporters had proceeded towards Trivandrum for delivery of the goods belonging to other parties earlier the petitioner cannot be faulted, for, they have no control over the transporters. It is also seen that the penalty of Rs. 45,837 was also paid by the driver of the vehicle, though it is stated that it is made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had stated that the value of the above consignment was duly accounted immediately on receipt of the goods by the petitioner and the tax due on the said turnover was also paid. 45,837 was also paid by the driver of the vehicle, though it is stated that it is made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had stated that the value of the above consignment was duly accounted immediately on receipt of the goods by the petitioner and the tax due on the said turnover was also paid. The first appellate authority has considered the contention of the petitioner and observed as follows : "The assessing authority rejected the accounts only for the reason that the abovementioned consignment was transported without proper documents. But the assessing authority had no dispute that the appellate had not accounted the transactions. However considering the irregularity noticed, the rejection of the account will sustain. But the Assistant Commissioner has added 5 times the value of the consignment and estimated the sale value by adding gross profit. The assessing authority has not pointed out any other instance the addition of 5 times appears to be excessive and disproportionate. In the absence of any other defects and the assessing authority has no dispute, that the purchase consignment was not accounted, the estimated of the entire turnover on the basis of the purchases value is unreasonable and unfair. Considering the circumstances of the case, I find that an addition of two times the purchase value of the goods transported will meet the ends of justice." On this aspect of the matter the Appellate Tribunal after noticing the above, observed as follows : "In the circumstances we are of the view that the two times addition made by the first authority is on the high side. As there is no case of any other omission or suppression, there is no reason for making an incremental addition. The addition may be reasonably limited to the actual amount of suppression alleged by the assessing authority. We therefore direct the assessing authority to limit the addition to the actual amount of suppression. Therefore he will estimate the addition by adding the gross profit to the value of the consignment of Rs. 3,05,576." 7. From the above, it is clear that the value of the consignment in question has been accounted by the petitioner in its books of accounts and the same has been subjected to tax. Therefore he will estimate the addition by adding the gross profit to the value of the consignment of Rs. 3,05,576." 7. From the above, it is clear that the value of the consignment in question has been accounted by the petitioner in its books of accounts and the same has been subjected to tax. In the absence of any other irregularity pointed out by the assessing authority and in view of the fact that the value of the consignment in question has been duly accounted and included in the return filed by the petitioner, there is no justification for making any addition to the returned turnover. We accordingly hold that the Tribunal was not justified in sustaining any addition to the returned turnover. We therefore direct the deletion of the addition sustained by the Tribunal. The assessing authority will modify the assessment accordingly. The revision is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.