JUDGMENT K. K. USHA, J. – Revision is at the instance of the assessee which is a partnership-firm dealing in jewellery. For the assessment year 1987-88 it declared a total taxable turnover of Rs. 6,07,140. The assessing authority rejected the books of account and completed the assessment to the best of judgment on a turnover of Rs. 14,62,890. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. But before the Tribunal the assessee obtained relief to some extent, since it reduced the estimation from 4 times the running stock to 3 times the running stock. From the above order of the Tribunal the revision is filed. 2. The books of account were rejected by the assessing authority, since suppression was found on inspection of the business premises by the Intelligence Officer on November 13, 1987. There was excess stock of 44.950 gms. of gold ornaments and a shortage in stock of 106.750 gms. of silver ornaments. The difference was admitted by the assessee and the offence of non-maintenance of correct and complete account had been compounded for Rs. 1,500. It was also found that no stock register was maintained for silver ornaments. The assessing authority proposed to fix turnover on a multiple of 4 times of the running stock. The assessee contended in his reply that the actual stock difference in the gold ornaments was only 4.950 gms. and it was due to a clerical mistake the difference was shown as 44.950 gms. It was also contended that the addition is highly excessive. It was rejecting the above contention of the assessee the assessment proceeding was completed. As mentioned earlier, the first appellate authority did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The Tribunal did not accept the explanation submitted by the assessee for the difference in the stock and it held that the excess stock found on inspection really existed and that pointed to purchase suppression. Relying on a decision of this Court in E. I. Varghese v. State of Kerala [1989] 75 STC 378, the Tribunal took the view that estimation of sales turnover of jewellery business at multiples of average running stock is a method which can be adopted. It also found that adoption of such method in the facts of the case by the assessing authority was justified. It also found that adoption of such method in the facts of the case by the assessing authority was justified. But taking into consideration the quantum of the suppression and the nature of the suppression it took the view that an addition of 3 times the average running stock in respect of gold and silver jewellary will be reasonable in this case. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the estimate on the basis of running stock method should not have been adopted in this case. In support of his contention he relied on a decision of this Court in C. Kunhikannan v. State of Kerala (1996) KLJ (TC) 97. In the above case it was observed that even though estimation of turnover at a certain number of times of the average running stock is permissible, it cannot be taken that it is the only method of estimating the turnover in relation to a jewellary business. Addition made on the basis of running stock is set aside and this Court directed an ad hoc addition of Rs. 15,000. According to the learned counsel, the above principle should be applied in this case and this Court may direct addition of the actual amount of suppression, which, according to the counsel, would come only about Rs. 14,000. 4. The learned Government Pleader contends that the facts of the case relied on by the assessee are entirely different. There the quantum of suppression found at the time of inspection was much less. There was excess of 0.300 grams of new gold and a shortage of 0.150 grams of old gold as also of four new gold ornaments for the year 1986-87. There was a deficit of 92.400 grams of silver. For the year 1987-88 on inspection shortage found was 5.400 grams of new gold ornaments besides nine numbers of new gold ornaments. Excess of silver was to the extent of 42.750 grams. In that case there was no finding of pattern of suppression. In the present case the excess found was 44.950 grams of gold and shortage of silver to the extent of 106.750 grams. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that there was finding of pattern of suppression in this case. Under these circumstances, he submits that there was no justification in interfering with the addition made by the Tribunal. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that there was finding of pattern of suppression in this case. Under these circumstances, he submits that there was no justification in interfering with the addition made by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed by the learned Government Pleader in Elite Jewellary v. Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.), Sales Tax Special Circle, Thrissur [1993] 91 STC 354 (Ker), Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam v. N.P.C. Jewellery [1996] 103 STC 394 (Ker) and judgment in T.R.C. No. 162 of 1995 [Reported as George Joseph v. State of Kerala [1997] 107 STC 152 (Ker).], in support of his contention. In the last mentioned case this Court has reduced the estimate from 2 times the average running stock to 1 1/2 times. In that case the assessee returned a turnover of Rs. 12,26,207. The suppression found at the time of inspection on May 20, 1998 was to the extent of Rs. 73,652, which included the stock variation and unaccounted transaction. The quantum of variation in the above case is less than what was found in the present case. No material is placed before us regarding the turnover returned for the earlier or subsequent years for the purpose of comparison. 5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we find that interest of justice will be served if two times the average running stock is taken. We therefore modify the order passed by the Tribunal estimating the turnover as three times the running stock value as two times the running stock. The revision stands partly allowed. C.M.P. No. 946 of 1996 in T.R.C. No. 30 of 1996 dismissed. Petition partly allowed.