JUDGMENT G. SIVARAJAN, J. – The assessee is the revision petitioner. The State is the respondent. The assessment year is 1978-79. The petitioner is engaged in cashew business under the trade name "Sundaresh Cashew Company" started on December 1, 1978 with main office at Kollam and cashew processing factory at Thripramala in Nagercoil District in Tamil Nadu. The assessment of the petitioner under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the year 1978-79 was completed by the Additional Sales Tax Officer, IInd Circle, Kollam, as per order dated November 20, 1981 (annexure C) determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 88,15,169.68. The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the inclusion of a turnover of Rs. 27,95,463 under raw nut purchase in Kerala and an addition of Rs. 13,97,731.50 being 50 per cent of the said purchase to cover up probable omissions and suppressions and an addition of Rs. 44,92,135.18 representing alleged consignment sales of kernels processed out of such unaccounted purchases. The petitioner therefore filed appeal against the assessment order before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kollam, who by his common order dated October 30, 1982 dismissed the appeal along with an appeal against the C.S.T. assessment. The second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was also unsuccessful. Hence this revision. Sri. N. Venkitarama Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that during the relevant assessment year the Kerala State resorted to monopoly procurement of local raw cashewnuts and allotted the same in specific quotas to the processing factories in the State and that since the petitioner had no factory in Kerala, he was not allotted any quota. He further submitted that, it was also not possible or legal for the petitioner to procure nuts from the open market. The counsel also submits that in the above circumstances the petitioner had purchased raw cashewnuts only from the State of Tamil Nadu where the factory was situated for processing of cashew kernels for export. He also submitted that the petitioner had filed the trading and profit and loss accounts for the year ended March 31, 1979 showing the details of the local purchase of raw cashewnuts made in the State of Tamil Nadu to the assessing authority at Kollam and to the assessing authority in the State of Tamil Nadu evidenced by annexures A and B respectively. He also submitted that the petitioner had produced the assessment order passed under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, by the Kuzhithurai Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on March 31, 1980. The counsel pointed out that the assessing authority, for the simple reason that there is discrepancy in the amount shown in annexures A and B, took the stand that annexure A would clearly establish the local purchase made in the State of Kerala and included the turnover of local purchase of raw nuts to the tune of Rs. 27,95,463 in the assessment under the Act. Counsel also submitted that there is absolutely no justification for adding 50 per cent of the said amount towards probable omissions and suppressions. The counsel further submitted that there is absolutely no justification for including a turnover of Rs. 44,92,135.18 as unaccounted sales turnover of cashew kernels within Kerala. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that the trading and profit and loss accounts for the year ended March 31, 1979 (annexure A) produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority gives the details of the purchase of local raw cashewnuts to the tune of Rs. 27,95,463 made in this State and payment of wages, transporting charges, leave with wages, etc., which would clearly establish that the petitioner had locally purchased raw cashewnuts and processed the same in factories at Kollam itself. The Government Pleader further submits that there is no basis for the submission that annexures A and B represent the same transaction, for, in annexure A local purchase of raw nuts is shown at Rs. 27,95,463 but in annexure B the same is shown at Rs. 28,00,463 and further in the proceedings of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai, dated March 31, 1980 it is stated that "besides the purchase in Tamil Nadu the dealers have also effected purchases of cashewnuts and kernels at their head office at Kollam within Kerala State and have also imported African nuts". He further pointed out that the assessee had not produced any supporting evidence to prove that the kernels sent on March 29, 1979 are for consignment sales and therefore the authorities were justified in adding the turnover as local sales. The Government Pleader also pointed out that the assessing authority had clearly brought out the circumstances under which the additions are made to the returned turnover. The Government Pleader also pointed out that the assessing authority had clearly brought out the circumstances under which the additions are made to the returned turnover. The dispute in this case relates to two items : (1) With regard to the inclusion of an amount of Rs. 27,95,463 and the addition of 50 per cent of the said amount towards probable omissions and suppressions and (2) addition of a sum of Rs. 42,50,400 towards sales suppression. As regards the first item the case of the petitioner is that he did not purchase raw nuts locally in the State of Kerala, that during the relevant period the raw cashewnuts could be purchased only through the canalising agency since the State had resorted to monopoly procurement of local raw cashewnuts and alloted the same in specific quotas to the processing factories in the State. The petitioner has also got a case that annexure A profit and loss account relates to the transactions made in the State of Tamil Nadu and that a copy of the same was produced before the assessing authority in the State of Kerala only for his information. It is also the case of the assessee that annexure B gives the details of raw cashewnuts purchased in Tamil Nadu during the relevant assessment year, the sum total of which is shown under the head purchase-local cashewnuts in annexure A and the expenses shown in annexure A relate to the expenses incurred for processing of the said raw cashewnuts in his factory in the State of Tamil Nadu. The assessee had also relied on the sales tax assessment for the year 1978-79 made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai in Tamil Nadu. The assessing authority did not accept the said contention of the petitioner since the profit and loss account produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority clearly showed the purchase of local raw nuts for Rs. 27,95,463. The assessing authority has also noted that there is difference in figures as per the copy of the assessment order of the assessing authority at Kuzhithurai, from the details furnished in annexure A. The first appellate authority has also noted that as per the trading and profit and loss account filed the appellant had purchased local raw nuts for Rs. 27,95,463 during the year, but the said purchases were not included in the return. 27,95,463 during the year, but the said purchases were not included in the return. The appellate authority also noted that the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kuzhithurai, in his order dated March 31, 1980 has stated that "besides the purchase in Tamil Nadu the dealers have also effected purchases of cashew nuts and kernels at their Head Office at Quilon within Kerala State and have also imported African nuts to the tune of Rs. 7,17,960". The appellate authority had accordingly rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the assessing authority. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the findings of the first appellate authority and confirmed the additions made by the assessing authority. We find that the first appellate authority has given cogent reasons for upholding the additions. Though the counsel for the petitioner repeated the same arguments as advanced before the authorities and the Tribunal, on the face of the findings of fact entered by the authorities and the Tribunal, this Court in revision under section 41 of the Act will not be justified in upsetting the findings of fact entered on the basis of relevant materials. In the instant case there is absolutely no material to support the case of the petitioner. Hence we are not in a position to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities and the Tribunal. The next point is regarding the addition of Rs. 42,50,400. The assessing authority had noted that the books of accounts produced by the assessee on January 23, 1979 disclosed only a purchase of 25 tins of kernels for Rs. 6,250 from Viswanath Cashew Co., Quilon, whereas the assessee had sold 300 cases on December 7, 1978, 250 cases on December 30, 1978 and 540 cases on January 18, 1979 (1,980 cases of kernels). The assessing authority also noted that the assessee had exported cashew kernels by way of foreign sales on various dates during the year totalling 6,440 tins in 3,220 cases. The assessing authority also noted that as per the purchase statement of empty tins the petitioner had purchased 4,935 tins during the period from March 12, 1979 to March 31, 1979 and that as per the statement there was no closing stock of empty tins also. The assessing authority also noted that as per the purchase statement of empty tins the petitioner had purchased 4,935 tins during the period from March 12, 1979 to March 31, 1979 and that as per the statement there was no closing stock of empty tins also. Since the assessee had accounted only the purchase of 4,935 tins the assessing authority took the view that the disposal of 6,440 empty tins with kernels is unaccounted. It is in the above circumstances, the assessing authority has taken the view that consignment sales to the tune of Rs. 42,50,400 is unaccounted. The first appellate authority has observed that the petitioner has not produced any supporting evidence to prove that the kernels sent on March 29, 1979 are for consignment sales. The Tribunal also noted the said finding of the appellate authority and concurred with the same. The circumstances pointed out by the assessing authority in regard to the purchase of empty tins; the absence of closing stock of tins; the export of 6,440 tins of kernels in 3,220 cases and the further circumstance that the petitioner had not produced any evidence in respect of the alleged consignment transaction, all points to the fact that the petitioner had effected unaccounted purchase of local raw cashewnuts and also unaccounted sale of cashew kernel processed out of the same. In these circumstances the assessing authority as well as the appellate authorities are perfectly justified in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 42,50,400 to the sales turnover. We do not find any illegality in the orders of the assessing authority or the appellate authorities in that regard. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in regard to the second point also. There is no merit in the tax revision case. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.