JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. – All these eight tax revision cases filed by the assessee involve common points of dispute, except T.R.C. Nos. 265 and 267 of 1998 where additional points are involved. This judgment shall govern each of the tax revision cases on common points and additional points raised for the relevant assessment years. They have been filed under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (in short, "the Act"). 2. Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") disposed of eight appeals relating to assessment years 1984-85 and 1986-87 onwards up to 1992-93. Assessee is a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. Its business is mainly in arrack and "Indian Made Foreign Liquor" (in short "IMFL") as an abkari contractor. Purchases are made mainly from distilleries within the State on basis of permits issued by Excise Department. It is registered as "dealer" under the Act on the files of Sales Tax Officer (Reserve I), Ist Circle, Kannur. During inspections carried out in business premises of assessee, certain discrepancies were noticed which were taken note of by assessing officer in rejecting turnovers returned and enhancements were made. Extra demands were made on the basis of such enhancement. Matter was carried on appeals before Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeals. Second appeals were filed before Tribunal and were numbered as Tribunal Appeal Nos. 445 to 452 of 1997. By impugned judgment, reliefs were granted to assessee on certain heads by reducing enhancement made by the assessing officer and affirmed by the first appellate authority. In respect of purchases of ice, soda, cool drinks, coconut, grocery and packing materials, they were not supported by purchase bills. Assessing officer had rejected the returned figures in respect of sale of foodstuff and enhancement was made. They were also reduced by Tribunal. For assessment year 1989-90 assessee took the plea that originally assessment was completed by rejecting the accounts on the ground of non-production of documents. At the time of hearing before Tribunal, some documents were produced. That is why Tribunal felt that accounts were to be examined afresh with reference to the documents produced. Accordingly, matter was remanded to assessing officer. For assessment year 1988-89, on the basis of a purported concession made by learned counsel for the assessee, enhancement was effected by Tribunal. At the time of hearing before Tribunal, some documents were produced. That is why Tribunal felt that accounts were to be examined afresh with reference to the documents produced. Accordingly, matter was remanded to assessing officer. For assessment year 1988-89, on the basis of a purported concession made by learned counsel for the assessee, enhancement was effected by Tribunal. For assessment year 1992-93, rate of tax applied on the sale of empty bottles is also questioned on the ground that tax has already been paid along with the contents and being second sale, no tax was leviable. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee in support of the applications submitted that though relief has been granted to assessee by Tribunal, it has not taken note of the fact that for minor discrepancies in stock, there cannot be any enhancement particularly when stock variation was petty compared to large turnover. So far as assessment year 1989-90 is concerned, it is submitted that all relevant records were before Tribunal and, therefore, it ought not have remanded matter to assessing officer for fresh assessment. For assessment year 1988-89, it is submitted that there was no cross appeal or independent appeal by Revenue. Therefore, it was impermissible to effect enhancement. Reliance is placed on the decision of apex Court in the State of Kerala v. Vijaya Stores [1978] 42 STC 418. Additionally, it was submitted that conclusion about concession is actually not correct. In fact, there was no concession and for that purpose an affidavit has been filed. So far as empty bottles are concerned, it is submitted that bottles have suffered tax along with its contents. Levy of tax on sale thereof amounts to levy on second sale which is impermissible under the statute. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the accounts were not rejected only on the ground of shortage in stock. In fact, there was not only deficit in stock but also excess stock of some items. What would be the proper enhancement is a question of fact. So far as enhancement on the basis of concession made is concerned, it is submitted that Tribunal has recorded a positive finding regarding making of concession. In law also, concession was well-founded in view of entry 76A of the First Schedule to the Act which has been introduced by the Finance Act, 1988. So far as enhancement on the basis of concession made is concerned, it is submitted that Tribunal has recorded a positive finding regarding making of concession. In law also, concession was well-founded in view of entry 76A of the First Schedule to the Act which has been introduced by the Finance Act, 1988. Assessing officer had not noticed the newly introduced provision and, therefore, concession was in line with statutory provision. In any event, whether that was a concession made or not is of academic value in view of the fact that an appropriate provision was not noticed. Further, it was open to the assessee to move Tribunal to pass orders with regard to alleged concession. According to him, sale of empty bottles cannot be construed as second sale. Reference is made to entry 156 of the First Schedule in the background of section 5(5) of the Act. 4. So far as question whether books of accounts can be rejected on the ground of shortages, no hard and fast rule of universal application can be laid down. It all depends upon the quantum of shortage, the volume and magnitude of transaction involved, the nature of articles dealt with and such other relevant factors. It can in a given case be said that on account of minimal shortage, books of accounts cannot be rejected. If shortage is high compared to turnover effected, it can certainly be a ground for rejection of accounts. But this question is really of academic interest in the present cases as there was not only shortage but also excess. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that shortages are to be ignored and only excess can be taken into account to form basis of enhancement. This plea is clearly not acceptable. Combined effect of shortages and excess have to be taken note of. Considering shortage and excess found, enhancement as sustained by Tribunal cannot be called to be arbitrary. What would be appropriate quantum of enhancement is essentially a conclusion on facts. Where the determination of an issue depends upon the appreciation of evidence or materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any principle of law, the issue raised is clearly a question of fact. What would be appropriate quantum of enhancement is essentially a conclusion on facts. Where the determination of an issue depends upon the appreciation of evidence or materials resulting in ascertainment of basic facts without application of any principle of law, the issue raised is clearly a question of fact. In such cases, Tribunal is the final fact finding authority and upon examination of all evidence and materials before it reaches certain findings deciding the existence or otherwise of some facts at issue. [See : Sree. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. C.I.T. [1957] 31 ITR 28 (SC)]. An inference from certain facts is also a question of fact. Acceptance or rejection of any piece of evidence by Tribunal squarely falls within the ambit of appreciation of evidence and ordinarily would not give rise to any question of law. Whether the accounts produced were unreliable or not is essentially a question of fact. That being the position, there is no scope for interfering with the conclusions of Tribunal so far as enhancement of turnovers are concerned. It was observed in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC) that in estimating any escaped turnover, it is inevitable that there is some guess-work. The assessing authority while making the "best judgment" assessment, no doubt, should arrive at its conclusion without any bias and/or rational basis. If the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bona fide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. If it is concluded that the accounts maintained by the assessee were rightly rejected, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the basis adopted in estimating the turnover has a reasonable nexus with the estimate made. If the basis adopted is held to be a relevant basis, the estimate made by the assessing authority cannot be disturbed even though the courts may think that it is not the most appropriate basis. That being the position, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the assessee that enhancement in respect of turnover is indefensible. Similar is the case of sale of foodstuffs, etc. Tribunal's conclusion and fixation of enhancement cannot be called to be arbitrary. That being the position, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the assessee that enhancement in respect of turnover is indefensible. Similar is the case of sale of foodstuffs, etc. Tribunal's conclusion and fixation of enhancement cannot be called to be arbitrary. So far as assessment year 1988-89 is concerned, it has been strenuously urged by learned counsel for the assessee, as indicated above, that in the absence of cross appeal turnovers cannot be enhanced in an appeal filed by the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue, with reference to section 39(4) of the Act, submitted that Tribunal is well within its power to pass an order of enhancement when admittedly the assessing authority and the first appellate authority have not noticed the particular provision. The plea is clearly untenable in view of the decision of the apex Court in Vijaya Stores' case [1978] 42 STC 418. But a further question arises whether enhancement can be ordered when assessee concedes enhancement notwithstanding absence of a cross appeal. If an assessee concedes that there is scope for enhancement even though the Revenue has not preferred an appeal, the position would be definitely different. Then the question to be decided would be whether such a concession was made or not if making of the concession is disputed. We need not go into that broad question in the cases at hand because of a definite stand taken by assessee that there was no such concession. Learned counsel for the Revenue objected to such conduct of assessee stating that Tribunal has categorically observed about the concession and same was made in view of the clear existence of provision which had not been looked into by the lower authorities. When a plea is taken that there was no concession as indicated in the order, the proper course for the affected party is to move the concerned court of Tribunal which had recorded the concession. That position has been eloquently stated by the apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249 . We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate if the Tribunal considers the matter afresh so far as this particular angle is concerned. 5. The residual question that remains to be decided is whether empty bottles are taxable in the hands of assessee. This issue relates to assessment year 1992-93. We, therefore, feel that it would be appropriate if the Tribunal considers the matter afresh so far as this particular angle is concerned. 5. The residual question that remains to be decided is whether empty bottles are taxable in the hands of assessee. This issue relates to assessment year 1992-93. On a reading of the First Schedule to the Act, it appears that prior to 1992-93, sales of empty bottles are taxable as an unclassified item. Entry 156 was introduced to the First Schedule with effect from November, 1992. After introduction of the said entry, the levy of tax therein is at the point of first sale in the State. Assessee's stand is that bottles having been already suffered tax along with its contents, under section 5(5) of the Act, the further sale of empty bottles cannot be taxed. Plea of the Revenue is that what is sought to be taxed in the hands of the assessee is sale of empty bottles. Empty bottles as such had not suffered tax as an item falling under entry 156 of the Schedule. Section 5(5) of the Act and entry 156 read as follows : "5. Levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods. - (1) Every dealer (other than a casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer) whose total turnover for a year is not less than one lakh rupees and every casual trader or agent of a non-resident dealer, whatever be his total turnover for the year, shall pay tax on his taxable turnover for that year, - ................................... (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), but subject to sub-section (6), where goods sold are contained in containers or are packed in any packing materials, the rate of tax and the point of levy applicable to such containers or packing materials, as the case may be, shall, whether the price of the containers or the packing materials is charged separately or not be the same as those applicable to goods contained or packed, and in determining turnover of the goods, the turnover in respect of the containers or packing materials shall be included therein." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. No. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 156 All other goods not At the point of first 8 per cent. No. Description of goods Point of levy Rate of tax ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 156 All other goods not At the point of first 8 per cent. coming under any sale in the State by a entry in any of the dealer who is liable to Schedules. tax under section 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IMFL had suffered tax as contained in the containers. There is no distinct sale of liquor and bottles separately. That being the position, levy of tax on the bottles is in order. Revision applications are accordingly dismissed. Petitions dismissed.