ORDER : Easwaran S., J. This O.T. Revision is preferred by the State aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Value Added Tax/Agriculture Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A.(V.A.T.) No.306 of 2016 dated 20.4.2022. 2. The facts in brief for disposal of the revision are as follows: The assessee is a registered dealer of bakery products. The annual return submitted by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-2011 was interfered by the assessing authority, pointing out that there was turnover suppression detected by the intelligence officer and purchase variation. Accordingly, the assessment was completed as per order dated 22.1.2015 demanding additional tax and interest. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). By order dated 13.7.2016, the appellate authority modified the order of assessment in relation to the addition towards probable omission, rate of tax and credit of tax paid. However, the assessee, aggrieved by the order, approached the appellate tribunal by preferring the appeal. Before the tribunal, it was contended by the assessee that the inspection conducted in the business premises of the appellant detected a turnover suppression of Rs.1,32,14,554/- and, on verification of the return and accounts revealed a purchase variation to the tune of Rs.1,33,600/-. The intelligence officer erroneously estimated the turnover suppression and added two times to the conceded turnover as part of the assessment. It was further contended that the amount covered by turnover suppression, as detected by the intelligence officer, included estimated turnover which is not permissible while calculating the actual suppression in a penalty proceeding. Out of Rs.1,32,14,554/-, a sum of Rs.8,53,147.50/- was added by way of mere estimation by the intelligence officer by stating that the same is added since equal amount for suppression by not producing the stock register of the raw materials and manufacturing stock register. The appellate tribunal, on considering the contentions of the assessee, held that a sum of Rs.8,53,147.50/- is liable to be excluded from the turnover assessed in connection with the proceedings of the intelligence officer. As regards the probable omission and suppression under the heads ‘suppressed turnover detected in inspection’ and ‘turnover related to purchase variation’, the tribunal limited the addition to 50% of the original turnover in tune with Section 25AA of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short, ‘KVAT Act’). As regards the probable omission and suppression under the heads ‘suppressed turnover detected in inspection’ and ‘turnover related to purchase variation’, the tribunal limited the addition to 50% of the original turnover in tune with Section 25AA of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (for short, ‘KVAT Act’). It is aggrieved by these findings that the State has come up with this revision by raising the following substantial question of law. 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in directing to exclude the turnover of Rs.8,53,147.50, particularly considering the fact that assessee had admitted suppression of said turnover as evidenced by Annexure A proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in directing to limit the addition to 50% relying on Section 25AA of the KVAT Act, particularly considering the fact that said Section came into force only with effect from 01.04.2019? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case Annexure D order passed by Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside? 3. Heard Sri. V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri. Santhosh P. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the assessee had suppressed the turnover and the contention regarding the method adopted by the intelligence officer cannot be raised at the appellate stage. He further pointed out that the appellate tribunal failed to note that the suppression of turnover includes the turnover of Rs.8,53,147.50/- ordered by the tribunal. It is pointed out that Section 25AA of the KVAT Act was introduced by an amendment with effect from 1.4.2019 and, therefore, it will not apply to assessments that are completed prior to the introduction of the provisions. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. M/S Shalimar Jewellry [O.T. Revision No.185 of 2016]. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee pointed out that the order of the appellate tribunal is perfectly justified. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench in State of Kerala v. M/S Shalimar Jewellry [O.T. Revision No.185 of 2016]. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee pointed out that the order of the appellate tribunal is perfectly justified. He would further point out that, going by the decision of the Division Bench in O.T.Revision No.48 of 2018 decided on 24.11.2021 (Sowparnika Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [ 2022 (1) KHC 137 ], the provisions of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act applies to pending proceedings and that further the appeal preferred before the tribunal is in continuation of the proceedings of the assessing authority. If, as a matter of fact, the tribunal had remanded the matter back to the assessing authority, the benefit of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act would have been made available to the assessee. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no rhyme or reason as to why the said power was not exercised by the tribunal. 6. We have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and are of the view that there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 7. The order of the tribunal is in two parts. In the first part, the tribunal excluded a sum of Rs.8,53,147.50/- from the turnover assessed in connection with the proceedings. It is now trite law that the assessing authority cannot blindly rely on the report of the intelligence officer and complete the assessment and a duty is cast upon the assessing authority to have an independent and comprehensive analysis of the materials on record. (See M/s U.K. Monu Timbers v. State of Kerala [ 2012 (3) KHC 111 (DB)]. The second part of the order of the tribunal deals with the applicability of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act. Section 25AA was inserted by Section 11(2) of the Finance Act, 2019. Proviso to Section 25AA provides that where the pattern of suppression is established, the assessment shall be completed by adding 50% of the suppressed turnover. 8. The question before us is as to whether the aforesaid provision can be applied by the tribunal or it is the assessing authority alone who can apply the aforesaid provision. Proviso to Section 25AA provides that where the pattern of suppression is established, the assessment shall be completed by adding 50% of the suppressed turnover. 8. The question before us is as to whether the aforesaid provision can be applied by the tribunal or it is the assessing authority alone who can apply the aforesaid provision. It is in this context that we have to consider the impact of the decision of the Coordinate Bench in M/s Shalimar Jewellery (Supra). No doubt, the Coordinate Bench in M/S Shalimar Jewellery (Supra) held that the amendment has only prospective effect and does not apply to the assessment already completed. 9. We have bestowed our anxious consideration to the decision of the Coordinate Bench and are of the view that the said decision is distinguishable on facts. In the case before the Division Bench, the assessing officer, on detecting suppression, had rejected the self-assessment of the assessee and carried out a best judgment assessment, and ordered three times the turnover under different heads on a lump sum addition. On appeal before the tribunal against the order of assessment as well as the order of the appellate authority, the tribunal allowed the appeal finding that the reopening of the assessment provided under Section 22(10) of the KVAT Act was impossible since in the absence of detecting a pattern of suppression, such an assessment cannot be carried out. However, in the present case, when the annual return filed by the assesee was pending, the detection of the alleged suppressed turnover was made by the intelligence officer and a penalty proceeding was initiated and based on the said report, the assessing authority proceeded to complete the assessment and against that order an appeal was carried to the appellate authority and thereafter before the tribunal. This is precisely the reason why we are inclined to hold that the decision in M/S Shalimar Jewellery (Supra) is distinguishable on facts. 10. In Sowparnika Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [ 2022 (1) KHC 137 ], the Division Bench of this Court held that Section 25AA of the KVAT Act can apply to the pending assessments or assessments directed to be reopened in appeal or revision. 10. In Sowparnika Projects and Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [ 2022 (1) KHC 137 ], the Division Bench of this Court held that Section 25AA of the KVAT Act can apply to the pending assessments or assessments directed to be reopened in appeal or revision. It was further held that the amendment had only prospective effect and does not apply to the assessment already completed and that the intention of the legislature is only to give effect to the assessment which are pending as on the date of insertion of the new section otherwise all completed assessment as on 1.4.2019 can be reopened at the instance of the dealer. 11. Though we have no quarrel regarding the ratio decidenti laid down by the Coordinate Bench in Sowparnika (Supra), we are of the considered view that the facts presented before us would completely deter us from applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench as above. As stated above, in the present case, the assessment itself was completed rejecting the annual return filed by the assessee by adding the suppressed turnover detected by the intelligence officer without verifying independently the veracity of the report of the intelligence officer. It is during the pendency of the appeal before the tribunal that the amendment came into force on 01.4.2019. 12. In our view, the amendment to the KVAT Act has to be seen in a different context altogether, since, by the date of amendment, the scheme of taxation itself had changed from Value Added Tax to Goods and Services Tax. Therefore, the amendment brought out to the KVAT Act has to be seen as a clarification and applicable to the assessments that were yet to be completed under the erstwhile Act. Of course, the pivotal question would remain as to when the assessment could be said to be completed? No doubt, in the present case, the order of assessment was passed on 22.1.2015. However, the said order was subjected to an appeal before the first appellate authority and still further before the tribunal. We must note that the power of the tribunal under Section 60 of the KVAT Act is inclusive enough to set aside, confirm or modify the order of assessment. Sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the KVAT Act reads as under: 60. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. xxxx 4. We must note that the power of the tribunal under Section 60 of the KVAT Act is inclusive enough to set aside, confirm or modify the order of assessment. Sub-section (4) of Section 60 of the KVAT Act reads as under: 60. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. xxxx 4. In disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal may after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard either in person or by a representative, - (a) in the case of an order of assessment or penalty, -(i)confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or penalty or both;(ii)set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment after such further enquiry as may be directed; or(iii)pass such other orders as it may think fit; or (b) in the case of any other order, confirm, cancel or vary such order: Provided that if the appeal involves a question of law on which the Appellate Tribunal has previously given its decision in another appeal and either a revision petition to the High Court against such decision or an appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court thereon is pending, the Appellate Tribunal may defer the hearing of the appeal before it, till such revision petition to the High Court or the appeal to the Supreme Court is disposed of. 13. Thus, the pertinent question would be that, if the benefit of provision of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act is extended to an assessee in whose case, the order of assessment is set aside by the appellate authority or the tribunal and remanded back to the assessing officer, why the same benefit cannot be extended to an assessee who is in appeal before the appellate tribunal. We cannot remain oblivious to the fact that if an assessing authority has got a power to apply Section 25AA of the KVAT Act under orders of the appellate authority setting aside the order of assessment and remanding the same before him for passing fresh orders of assessment, the tribunal also can exercise the same power in terms of sub-section (4) to Section 60. To denude the tribunal the power and hold that the assessing authority alone can exercise such power would go against the scheme of the KVAT Act. To denude the tribunal the power and hold that the assessing authority alone can exercise such power would go against the scheme of the KVAT Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is certainly entitled to the benefit of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act and the tribunal has rightly exercised its power and extended the benefit to the assessee by ordering the assessing authority to apply the benefit of Section 25AA of the KVAT Act. For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in this O.T.Revision. Accordingly the O.T.Revision is dismissed answering the questions of law raised against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.