JUDGMENT C. Praveen Kumar, J. - Heard Sri. S. Suri Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, appearing for Respondent. 2. The present Revision is filed under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, ['A.P.G.S.T. Act'] by the Assessee, namely, M/s. Veekay Oil Products, represented by its Proprietor Sri. V. Pitchaiah, against the State of Andhra Pradesh, impugning the Order, dated 10.03.2003, in T.A. No. 682 of 1998 on the file of Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, dismissing the Appeal while confirming the Order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner [CT], Guntur, who in turn confirmed the Order of Assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla, for the Assessment years 1991-92. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: i) The Petitioner herein was a dealer in Sunflower Seed, Oil and Sunflower Oil Cake; doing business in the name and style of M/s. Veekay Oil Products, Piduguralla, and an Assessee on the file of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla. ii) The Deputy Commercial Officer, Piduguralla, assessed the dealer [Petitioner] for the Assessment Year 1991-92 through its proceedings, dated 19.10.1992, on a net turnover @ 1,96,980/-. It is said that, the sales to an extent of 301580 kilograms were not reported, through monthly returns. All these transactions were not considered for the assessment by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla. Further, the Assessee [Petitioner] had not filed the information regarding the usage of waybills, for which sales were obtained from the Department. iii) Taking into consideration the information furnished, a Notice was issued to the dealer [Petitioner] on 28.05.1994, which was served on 31.05.1994. In the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] was requested to produce books of accounts for the year 1991-92 along with details of purchases and sales of oil and cake. iv) In response to the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] addressed a letter, dated 14.06.1994, stating that the Notice was vague and the contents mentioned therein were not true and did not refer to Petitioner's business. It was also stated that, the contents mentioned in the Notice do not attract the provisions of A.P.G.S.T. Act. iv) In response to the Notice, the dealer [Petitioner] addressed a letter, dated 14.06.1994, stating that the Notice was vague and the contents mentioned therein were not true and did not refer to Petitioner's business. It was also stated that, the contents mentioned in the Notice do not attract the provisions of A.P.G.S.T. Act. It was further stated that, the dealer [Petitioner] has already informed the Commercial Tax Officer that the records of the dealer [Petitioner] were destroyed in fire accident and requested the Commercial Tax Officer for supply of copies of waybills, invoices, delivery challans etc., enabling him to give a detailed reply. v) Taking into consideration the request of the dealer [Petitioner], a Notice was issued on 18.06.1994 requesting him to appear at Commercial Tax Officer's Office on or before 30.06.1994 and obtain the information required. It is said that, without obtaining any information, as required by him, from the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, the dealer [Petitioner] approached the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition, which was disposed of with a direction that, 'the Petitioner be given the facility of inspection of the relevant documents in the office of the respondent on 08.07.1994 and thereafter permitted him to make an application giving particulars of the documents which he requires.' vi) In compliance of the Order, copies of the documents were supplied to the dealer on 15.07.1994. Thereafter, the dealer filed objections on 21.07.1994. Taking into consideration the objections filed by the dealer [Petitioner], and other facts of the case, the Commercial Tax Officer, issued a Notice on 18.01.1995, proposing best judgment assessment under Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, on an escaped turnover, for the assessment year 1991-92, which reads as under: 'The above net turnover was proposed to be taxed as follows: vii) It is stated that, the notice issued, proposing best judgment, was served on 21.09.1995. The dealer [Petitioner] filed its objections through a letter, dated 06.03.1995, which were in addition to the objections already filed in the letter dated 21.07.1994. viii) Considering the material available on record, it was held that, the estimation made in the Show Cause Notice for determining the escaped turnover is just and proper. The dealer [Petitioner] filed its objections through a letter, dated 06.03.1995, which were in addition to the objections already filed in the letter dated 21.07.1994. viii) Considering the material available on record, it was held that, the estimation made in the Show Cause Notice for determining the escaped turnover is just and proper. Accordingly, the turnover proposed in the Show Cause Notice was confirmed and the dealer [Petitioner] was assessed to the best of judgment on escaped gross and net turnovers, for the year 1991-92, under Section 14(4) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act. Assailing the same, an Appeal came to be preferred, which was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Tax Revision Case, came to be filed. 4. Though, various grounds are raised, Sri. S. Suri Babu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, fairly submits that, the case on hand is covered by the Judgment of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, which was filed against the Common Order in T.A. Nos. 684, 683 of 1998 & 682 of 1998 [present T.R.C.]. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, submits that, since the case on hand is covered by the Judgment of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, the present T.R.C. has to be rejected. 6. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to Para 7 of the grounds of revision i.e., 'Question of Law' formulated, is as under: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in accepting the extracts obtained from the check posts without any corroborative evidence in support thereof? (ii) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in affirming the estimation of turnovers with reference to sales with no corresponding consumption of power? (iii) Whether the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in denying an opportunity to the Petitioner for cross-examination of witnesses? 7. As stated earlier, the above 'Question of Law' was fairly discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, which was dismissed on 07.04.2015, confirming the judgment of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. As stated earlier, the above 'Question of Law' was fairly discussed by a Division Bench of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, which was dismissed on 07.04.2015, confirming the judgment of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The relevant paragraph of the Judgment of the Division Bench is as under: '6) The cross-examination is not as of right for even no worth material placed much less any case made out to afford opportunity in cross examination to elicit any material required for consideration. In fact, from the above questions of law, claimed there is no question of law involved practically. No doubt so far as the estimation of turnovers on the basis of consumption of electricity is concerned, it is only one of the permissible modes and that too when there is no other evidence and only on showing there is any direct nexus between the consumption of electricity and the turn over, without which that cannot be taken as a basis as held by this Court in Venkata Ramana Stone Crushers Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, said contention has no legs to stand in the absence of any material to substantiate, and that too, when the same is not the basis by itself. Coming to the limitation aspect raised when there is a suppression of the turnover, it is the extended limitation that is applicable, that also meted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the appellate authority. Importantly the assessing authority when taken every possible means to prove the nature of transactions and there were suppression of the estimated turnovers by Nil return or by return showing absolutely low turnover and the same was detected on cross verification from the extracts of the check post and also information from the banks and purchasing dealers which are very clearly discussed in corroboration of one to the other to substantiate with reasons to the best judgment assessment, that too after supply of all the copies and even when the assessee (revision petitioner) failed to deny any of the transactions through the books of accounts, weigh bills and other documentary evidence, but for by a stray sentence of all are as if fake or untrue, that is not suffice. Furthermore, the assessee who obtained weigh bills from the assessing authority failed to produce the triplicate copies and render account for its use when called for and came up with a plea of records destroyed as if in a fire accident with no any basis even to say much less to substantiate. On the other hand the assessment order clearly speaks with reasons from what is discussed supra that was confirmed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of said version is untrue from the recorded evidence, but intentionally for evasion of tax by filing Nil returns or returns with utterly low turnover, there is for this Court while sitting in revision against the impugned order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the two respective revisions nothing to interfere. 7) Accordingly, both the revisions are dismissed.' 8. Having regard to the above and since the issue on hand is identical to the one decided by a Division Bench of this Court in T.R.C. Nos. 264 of 2003 and 23 of 2004, which according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has become final and as the same is not challenged; the present Tax Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.