ORDER : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. This O.T. Revision is preferred by the assessee impugning the order dated 31.01.2024 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in T.A. (VAT) No.53 of 2022. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this O.T. Revision are as follows: The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the State Tax Officer, State Goods and Services Tax Department, Thiruvananthapuram. The annual return submitted by the assessee for the period 2014-15 was re-opened by the assessing authority pointing out series of anomalies such as unaccounted local and interstate purchase, unaccounted sales, unproved sales return etc. After considering the reply of the assessee, the assessment was completed by raising an additional demand of Rs.29.45 lakhs as per order dated 30.10.2020. The said assessment order was modified to a certain extent by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.09.2021. Dissatisfied with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which passed the order impugned in this O.T. Revision. In the O.T. Revision, the petitioner raises the following questions of law: i) Whether the Honb'le Tribunal justified in demanding non- generation of Form No.8FA, for taking back the electronic equipment by Air, especially when the amendment in Finance Act, 2016, in Sec.46(3)(f) of KVAT Act, is with effect from 01.04.2016 and which does not have retrospective effect ? ii) Whether the assessing authority was justified in completing assessment under presumption or assumption as to unaccounted interstate purchase ? iii) Whether the action of 1 st appellate authority in justifying Ann-VI order of assessment in Ann-VIII 1 st Appellate order is in accordance with law ? 3. We have heard Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V.K. Shamsudheen, the learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions made across the bar, we find that the sole issue that arises for consideration is with regard to the assessment completed on the petitioner in respect of a consignment of laboratory and scientific equipment that was brought from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram for exhibiting the same at a seminar organised by the Indian Institute of Science and Education Research [IISER], Thiruvananthapuram from 29 th October, 2014 to 31 st October, 2014. The Assessing Authority found that the laboratory and scientific equipment valued at Rs.96 lakhs was consigned in the name of the petitioner vide bill No.1304 dated 20.10.2014 by the consignor 'DSS Imagetech Pvt. Ltd.', New Delhi. The consignment had arrived at Thiruvananthapuram Airport on 21.10.2014, and it was the petitioner herein who generated the Form 8FA declaration in respect of the said consignment using its credential password twice on 21.10.2014 and 22.10.2014 respectively. The petitioner did not, however, account the transaction in its books of account. Apparently, the said consignment of goods was subsequently taken back to Delhi by Air on 06.11.2014. The said return of the goods back to Delhi was supposedly effected under cover of documents such as a certificate from IISER, Thiruvananthapuram, stating that the consigned items which were exhibited at the exhibition were collected by one Mr. Manoj Kumar, who was the representative of the consignor from Delhi, and it was sent back to Delhi after demo purpose on 06.11.2014 via Spice Jet from Thiruvanathapuram Airport as per an Airway bill dated 06.11.2014. 5. The authorities below found that in as much as the petitioner herein had generated a Form 8FA declaration in connection with the receipt of the goods from Delhi into Thiruvananthapuram for the purposes of exhibition at the venue in Thiruvananthapuram, but had not accounted the goods in its books of account nor produced any transportation documents to support the stand that the very same goods had been re-transferred to Delhi from Thiruvananthapuram on 06.11.2014, the only inference possible was that the said goods were sold within the State and therefore liable to tax at the instance of the petitioner herein. Although the petitioner had, before the various authorities, contended that it was only facilitating the transport of the goods from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram and back, and that it had no other role to play in the whole transaction, the authorities below found otherwise, since it was the petitioner who had raised the Form 8FA declaration at the outset and at the commencement of the transaction. The authorities reasoned that the petitioner could not escape its obligation to account for the goods and explain the subsequent movement of the goods after their receipt in Thiruvananthapuram. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal in this connection is at paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which reads as under: “7. The authorities reasoned that the petitioner could not escape its obligation to account for the goods and explain the subsequent movement of the goods after their receipt in Thiruvananthapuram. The finding of the Appellate Tribunal in this connection is at paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which reads as under: “7. The appellant filed written argument notes before the Tribunal in which it is stated that the authorities below failed to appreciate case of the appellant in the proper perspective and no due consideration was given in respect of the documents produced by the appellant to prove the case. We have gone through the documents referred above to ascertain whether there is any substance in the case of the appellant. There is no dispute regarding the fact that certain goods valuing Rs.96 lakhs were consigned in the name of the appellant by DSS Imagetech. It was based on a delivery note under Delhi VAT Act bearing No.1304 dated 20.10.2014 in respect of three sets of microscope unit contained in 28 boxes. It is true that there is specific endorsement in the delivery note that the goods were meant for demo purpose and not for sale. There is no evidence regarding conduct of any demo in respect of the said items in Hotel Hycinth in between 21.10.2014 and 06.11.2014. The only document relied on by the appellant to prove return of goods back to Delhi is an Airway Bill dated 06.11.2014 issued by Spice Jet cargo. As per the said document Mr. Manoj Kumar is the consignor and one Mr. Bharat Rawath, New Delhi is the consignee. In the column related to description of goods, reference was to electronics goods weighing 558 Kgs. in 28 pieces. The document did not specify the goods as per the value and narrative as shown in the delivery note dated 20.10.2014. Therefore the Airway bill referred above is not sufficient to clearly establish that the goods covered by the delivery note and 8FA declaration are the goods mentioned in the Airway bill. Of course, there is an acknowledgment in the form of letter issued by Mr. Manoj Kumar, DSS Imagetech and e-mail copies regarding the transaction. Therefore the Airway bill referred above is not sufficient to clearly establish that the goods covered by the delivery note and 8FA declaration are the goods mentioned in the Airway bill. Of course, there is an acknowledgment in the form of letter issued by Mr. Manoj Kumar, DSS Imagetech and e-mail copies regarding the transaction. But as rightly pointed out by the authorities below return delivery of the goods should have been supported by Form 15 delivery note in the name of the appellant since entry of the goods was made possible by generating 8FA declaration using credential password of the appellant. In the absence of such evidence, it is pleaded by the State that possibility for utilisation of the goods for sale inside the State cannot be ruled out and hence there is every justification for assessment of the turnover as done by the assessing authority. It is true that documents produced by the appellant may make it possible to accept the version of the appellant under the yardstick of preponderance of probability. The golden rule – when two views are possible, view in favour of the assessee should be given priority is more applicable in the case of penalty proceedings. In case of assessment, if one view is taken by the assessing authority, it may not be proper for the appellate authorities to substitute findings of the authority below by adopting another view which is equally possible. Interference with the findings of authorities below is possible only when such finding is totally illegal or against the settled norms and principles of law. No such fault can be attributed against the findings of the authorities below in this case. Hence we do not find any reason to unsettle the assessment on the above aspect. We find that the assessment above is sustainable within the legal parameters. Hence we confirm the assessment order as modified by the appellate authority. Points are answered against the appellant.” 6. In the light of the clear findings of the Appellate Tribunal on facts, and in the absence of anything to suggest that the petitioner had in fact maintained or produced documents to show the movement of the goods within Kerala or from Kerala to Delhi, we cannot find fault with the findings of the Tribunal as above. In the light of the clear findings of the Appellate Tribunal on facts, and in the absence of anything to suggest that the petitioner had in fact maintained or produced documents to show the movement of the goods within Kerala or from Kerala to Delhi, we cannot find fault with the findings of the Tribunal as above. The O.T. Revision therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed by answering the questions of law raised against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.