Revision jurisdiction and best judgment assessment: unraised issues were not maintainable, and account rejection supported factual estimation.

Revision under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held incompetent where the questions sought to be raised had neither been urged nor decided by the Appellate Tribunal, because revision cannot lie on issues outside the Tribunal's adjudication. The document also states that, once accounts were rejected for substantial suppression and irregularities, the estimate made in a best judgment assessment was primarily a question of fact. On the material noted, no legal infirmity was shown in sustaining the additions, so the assessments and additions remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petitions under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 were maintainable when the questions urged were never raised or adjudicated before the Appellate Tribunal. (ii) Whether the rejection of accounts and the estimation/addition made in the best judgment assessment suffered from any error of law.

Issue (i): Whether the revision petitions under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 were maintainable when the questions urged were never raised or adjudicated before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The revisions sought adjudication of questions that had not been mooted, raised, or decided before the Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of any adjudication by the final fact-finding authority on those questions, there was no basis to say that the Tribunal had decided a question of law erroneously or failed to decide one. The statutory revision jurisdiction could not be invoked on issues that had not been put in controversy before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The revisions were incompetent and not maintainable. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of accounts and the estimation/addition made in the best judgment assessment suffered from any error of law.

Analysis: The inspections disclosed substantial suppressions and irregularities in the business accounts, and the authorities consistently found that the books could not be accepted. Once accounts were rejected, the quantum of addition in a best judgment assessment was primarily a question of fact. The Tribunal gave detailed reasons for sustaining the estimates, and no legal infirmity was shown in that process.

Conclusion: The rejection of accounts and the additions sustained by the Tribunal were upheld. This issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the assessments and additions sustained by the Tribunal were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision under the sales tax law is not maintainable on questions that were never raised or decided before the Appellate Tribunal, and once accounts are validly rejected for suppression and irregularities, the estimate in a best judgment assessment is ordinarily a question of fact.

---