ORDER Ms. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. The above Revision is filed by the Revenue under Section 38(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, to revise the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (AB), Madurai dated 12.12.2003 passed in M.T.S.A. No. 987 of 2002. 2. The relevant assessment year is 1997-1998. The respondent herein is an assessee engaged in the manufacture of blue metal of various sizes as required for marketing. The assessment for the year under consideration was revised by the Assessing Officer based on the survey conducted by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement Wing, Trichy along with the Junior Research Officer, Trichy and Statistical Inspector on 16.11.1998. The revised assessment resulted in a demand and levy of penalty under Section 16 of the Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by that, the assessee went on appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal deleting the entire turnover and thereby penalty too, for the assessment year 1996-1997. For the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, the Appellate Authority deleted the turnover of Rs. 6,89,100/- and Rs. 4,51,800/-, so too the penalty levied. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue went on appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. In considering the question whether the deletion of the turnover and consequently penalty was justified, the Tribunal pointed out that after verification of the records and also following the rate adopted per unit by some dealers in the line of this trade, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner arrived at the turnover. The Tribunal found that the method adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was fair and based on records. The Tribunal pointed out that the Assessing Officer adopted the rate per unit after making enquiry with certain contractors, Railway Department and certain dealers who are dealing in jelly and chips. The First Appellate Authority pointed out that the Assessing Officer had not disclosed the source from which he ascertained the rates. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the rate adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was based on records relating to similarly placed dealers and accordingly, sustained the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Altogether, it is a pure question of fact. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable ground to admit the Tax Case (Revision). Hence the order of the Tribunal is confirmed and the Tax Case (Revision) is dismissed. No costs. Altogether, it is a pure question of fact. Therefore, we do not find any justifiable ground to admit the Tax Case (Revision). Hence the order of the Tribunal is confirmed and the Tax Case (Revision) is dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed.