ORDER G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The matter arises under the kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The revision-petitioner is a partnership-firm in the name and style of Hotel Green Park at Kottayam, engaged in the business of sale of cooked food as well as foreign liquor. For the assessment year 1991-92, the petitioner filed a return declaring total and taxable turnover of Rs. 41,00,707.05 and Rs. 22,23,164.95 respectively. The assessing authority did not accept the books of accounts and completed the assessment by fixing the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 47,18,850 and Rs. 26,91,460 respectively. Aggrieved by the said assessment order the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. The said assessment was modified by reducing the quantum of addition made to the returned turnover. In second appeal by the petitioner the Appellate Tribunal further reduced the addition sustained by the first appellate authority. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in respect of foreign liquor, he is only a second seller and therefore he is not liable to pay sales tax on the turnover of second sale of foreign liquor. Learned counsel also submitted that the stock variation in foreign liquor found at the time of inspection conducted by the department on June 24, 1991 was only shortage of small quantities and that in view of the decision of this Court in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala (1991) KLJ (TC) 665, no tax can be levied in respect of such shortages. Learned counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal while considering the question of adequacy of the addition noted that neither the inspecting authority nor the assessing authority has any case that the petitioner is practising any unaccounted purchase and that after entering such a finding the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in sustaining any addition to the turnover of liquor. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in confirming the addition sustained by the first appellate authority. 3. We have considered the matter. We find from the order of the Tribunal itself that the books of accounts of the petitioner and the turnover furnished in the return were not accepted by the Tribunal on account of various irregularities found on inspection. 3. We have considered the matter. We find from the order of the Tribunal itself that the books of accounts of the petitioner and the turnover furnished in the return were not accepted by the Tribunal on account of various irregularities found on inspection. We do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal in sustaining the rejection of the accounts. 4. Regarding the quantum of addition sustained by the Tribunal also we do not find any illegality or impropriety. The Tribunal has noted that the inspecting authority in the inspection conducted on June 24, 1991 found that the petitioner had made manipulations in the sale bills issued on June 24, 1991. The Tribunal had also noted that there were shortages of different items of liquor. The appellate authority on a consideration of the irregularities found at the time of inspection held that the addition sustained by the first appellate authority is excessive. The Tribunal also noted that the assessing authority on account of the irregularities found at the time of inspection had made an addition of 10 percent on the sales turnover of liquor and also 40 percent for the sales turnover of soft drinks, which were reduced by the first appellate authority to 5 per cent anda 25 per cent respectively. The Tribunal found that in the absence of a pattern of suppression established in this case and considering the fact that there were manipulations in the sales bills of foreign liquor and also shortage of various items of liquor, ends of justice will be met by sustaining an addition of 2.5 per cent of the sales turnover of liquor and 20 per cent of the sales turnover of soft drinks. The decision of this Court in Kuruvila Chacko's case (1991) KLJ (TC) 665 was a case of shortage simpliciter and there were no other irregularities in that case. In the instant case, as already stated, the Tribunal has taken into account the manipulation in the sale bills also in addition to the shortages in sustaining the addition. Therefore it cannot be held that the Tribunal erred in sustaining the addition to the extent maintained. In the instant case, as already stated, the Tribunal has taken into account the manipulation in the sale bills also in addition to the shortages in sustaining the addition. Therefore it cannot be held that the Tribunal erred in sustaining the addition to the extent maintained. In fact, the decision of this Court in Kuruvila Chacko's case (1991) KLJ (TC) 665 was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sreekrishna Trading Company v. State of Kerala [1998] 108 STC 14; (1995) 2 KLT 255 and held that in cases where in addition to the shortage if there are other irregularities also Kuruvila Chacko's case will not have any application. That apart this is a case in which the Appellate Tribunal has considered the materials available on record and on appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case has sustained an addition of 2.5 percent in respect of the sales turnover of foreign liquor and 20 percent in respect of sales turnover of soft drinks. The aforesaid finding of the Tribunal is a finding of fact. 5. We will not be justified in interfering with the said finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal in revision under section 41 of the Act. There is no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.