ORDER G. SIVARAJAN, J. – This is a tax revision case filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (LAW), Board of Revenue (Taxes), Ernakulam, under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 against the order in T.A. No. 358 of 1991 of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. The respondent-assessee is a dealer in jaggery. The assessment year concerned is 1988-89. The assessee filed a return showing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 5,60,576 and Rs. 5,13,508 respectively. The assessing authority rejected the return and accounts and estimated the taxable turnover at Rs. 7,62,480. Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the respondent took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam, who by his order dated October 15, 1991 dismissed the said appeal. The second appeal before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, was allowed in part. It is against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal the department has come up in revision. 2. The only question arising for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in interfering with the estimate made by the assessing authority on the turnover of jaggery by invoking the provisions of section 19B of the Act and affirmed by the first appellate authority. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the department strongly contended before us that the assessing authority has got power under section 19B of the Act read with rule 11B of the Rules, where he finds that the dealer has deliberately shown in his accounts, sale or purchase of goods at prices lower than the prevailing market price with a view to evade tax to estimate the value of such goods on the basis of the market price. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that in this case the assessing authority had conducted enquiries in this matter and that such enquiry revealed that the dealer has practised undervaluation. It is also submitted that the assessing authority has cited cases of other jaggery dealer who had shown higher prices for jaggery and that the respondent has not produced any evidence to show that the jaggery sold by him was of inferior quality as alleged. It is also submitted that the assessing authority has cited cases of other jaggery dealer who had shown higher prices for jaggery and that the respondent has not produced any evidence to show that the jaggery sold by him was of inferior quality as alleged. He also submitted that the onus is on the dealer to prove such cases, and the dealer has failed to establish the same. He further submitted that the method adopted by the assessing authority, viz., comparison of price with other dealers is valid, which would show that other jaggery dealers have conceded higher price than that conceded by the assessee and that the addition so made is justified in view of the decision of this Court in T.A.C.A. Association v. State of Kerala [1988] 71 STC 332. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that in order to justify the estimate of turnover based on the prevailing market price by resorting to the provisions of section 19B, it is necessary that the assessing authority must establish that the assessee factually collected more than the ostensible consideration shown in the accounts and that in the instant case neither the assessing authority nor the first appellate authority had a case that the assessee had in fact collected amounts more than that is shown in the accounts. Learned counsel submitted that in the absence of such a finding recorded in any of the orders of the authorities below the estimation of turnover by resorting to the provisions of section 19B of the Act is not permissible. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Tribunal had only applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese v. Income-tax Officer [1981] 131 ITR 597 and held that in the instant case, there is absolutely no material or evidence to show that the assessee had in fact collected more than what is shown in the accounts. It is on the above basis the Appellate Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, directed the assessing authority to accept the value of goods as shown in the accounts of the assessee for the year under appeal. 4. We have considered the matter. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee. It is on the above basis the Appellate Tribunal, according to the learned counsel, directed the assessing authority to accept the value of goods as shown in the accounts of the assessee for the year under appeal. 4. We have considered the matter. We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee. This Court in C. O. Devassy v. State of Kerala [1991] 81 STC 2 while considering the justifiability of the assessment based on the adoption of the average market rate by resorting to the provisions of section 19B of the Act, inter alia, held that a duty was cast on the Revenue to prove that the assessees factually collected more than the ostensible consideration shown in the accounts, and that such a finding is essential to sustain the assessments under section 19B of the Act. It is also seen that the above principle was laid down by this Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese's case [1981] 131 ITR 597 mentioned supra and also the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Delux Wines v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1990] 77 STC 373. 5. We will now consider the matter in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in the abovementioned cases. The assessing authority after adverting to the reply filed by the assessee regarding the proposal to fix the sale value of jaggery at Rs. 4 per kg. against the accounted value of Rs. 2.83 by resorting to the provisions of section 19B of the Act, observed as follows : "Enquiries conducted by me regarding the average sale value returned by similar dealers revealed that assessee 'A' a registered dealer at Sale Tax Office, 2nd Circle, Kottayam, returned as per kg. value of Rs. 3.76 and assessee 'B' another assessee at Sales Tax Office, 2nd Circle, Kottayam returned as per kg. value of Rs. 4.05. All the above facts foes to show that my fixation of the average market value for 1988-89 at Rs. 4 is quite reasonable. In the circumstances the objections are overruled and final assessment for 1988-89 stands completed as proposed under section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963." 6. value of Rs. 4.05. All the above facts foes to show that my fixation of the average market value for 1988-89 at Rs. 4 is quite reasonable. In the circumstances the objections are overruled and final assessment for 1988-89 stands completed as proposed under section 19B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963." 6. Likewise the first appellate authority has considered the question as follows : "Therefore the question arises for consideration is whether the assessing authority has fulfilled the conditions under section 19B of the Act before rejecting the value conceded by the appellant and estimating the sale value at the average rate. On perusal of the assessment records I find that the assessing authority has made valid enquiries with regard to the value and the details of such enquiries conducted by the assessing authority are available in the assessment records. Therefore I am satisfied with the evidence that the conditions to be satisfied under section 19B do stand satisfied and hence the estimation at the rate of Rs. 4 per kilogram is in order and hence upheld." 7. From the discussion of the question made by the assessing authority and by the first appellate authority as above, it is clear that neither the assessing authority nor the first appellate authority had made any effort to establish that the assessee had factually collected more than the ostensible collections shown in the accounts. There is absolutely no such finding recorded in the said orders. On the other hand, we find that the Appellate Tribunal had clearly borne in mind the principles laid down by this Court in C. O. Devassy's case [1991] 81 STC 2, which in turn relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. P. Varghese's case [1981] 131 ITR 597, and applied the same to the facts of the case and considered the matter in the following manner : "Here in the case before us, there is absolutely no piece of evidence on record to establish the case that the assessee in this case has factually collected or obtained something more than that shown in his accounts or bills. In the absence of such a definite finding that the assessee has collected anything more than what is shown in his accounts or bills, the assessment made on that basis invoking provisions of section 19B of the Act is unsustainable in law. In the absence of such a definite finding that the assessee has collected anything more than what is shown in his accounts or bills, the assessment made on that basis invoking provisions of section 19B of the Act is unsustainable in law. So, we see no ground to uphold the valuation adopted by the assessing authority under section 19B of the Act. This point is accordingly found in favour of the assessee and, the assessing authority is directed to accept the value of the goods as shown in the accounts of the assessee for the year under appeal." 8. We are in full agreement with the findings and conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal as above. The decision of the Tribunal is perfectly in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in C. O. Devassy's case [1991] 81 STC 2. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.