H.L. Dattu, C.J.

Both these revision petitions pertain to the assessment year 1996-97.

.2. S.T.Rev. No.136/2005 is filed questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No.694 of 2001 dated 17.2004 under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and S.T.Rev. No.150 of 2005 is filed questioning the orders passed by the

.Appellate Tribunal in T.A.No.693 of 2001 dated 17.2004 under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.

3. Petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (the KGST Act, for short) and Central Sales Tax Act, 1965 (the CST Act, for short). The petitioner is a dealer in superior kerosene oil having branch offices at Ernakulam and Pondicherry. Petitioner is borne on the files of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Special Circle-III, Ernakulam. Petitioner used to import superior kerosene oil from abroad under the import licence granted by Government of India. The import is done through Madras and Kochi Ports. During the assessment year 1996-97, petitioner imported 5616.454 KLs of Kerosene through Kochi port and out of which 1595.001 KLs were sold locally and 4728 KLs were transported to Pondicherry by way of branch transfer is the claim of the petitioner.

4. The Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence Wing of the Department had inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 7.1996 and 10.1996 and had noticed certain discrepancies in the books of account maintained by the dealer and pointing out those omissions and commissions had prepared shop inspection reports, SIR No.190472/7.1996 and SIR No.33051/10.1996 and the same had been served on the assessee.

5. Petitioner had filed its annual returns both under KGST Act and CST Act for the assessment year 1996-97. In the returns filed for the purpose of KGST assessments, the assessee had declared the total and taxable turnover of Rs.474,85.047 and Rs.129,16,407 respectively. In the returns filed for the purpose of CST assessment, the assessee had laimed inter-State stock transfer of 4728.000 KLs of superior kerosene oil for Rs.345,68,640/-. The returns filed both under KGST Act and the CST Act came to be rejected by the assessing authority, in view of the orders passed by the Intelligence Officer under Section 45A of the KGST Act, pursuant to shop inspection reports dated 7.1996 and 10.1996 respectively.

6. The assessing authority after rejecting the books of accounts and the annual returns filed by the assessee and literally incorporating the findings and conclusions reached by the Intelligence Officer while passing the order under Section 45A of KGST Act for the purpose of imposing penalty for the offence said to have been committed under that provision, had issued proposition notice, proposing to reject the returns and complete the assessments by resorting to best judgment assessment. Though the notice came to be served on the assessee, for the reasons best known to it, did not choose to file any objections to the proposal made in the pre-assessment notice.

.7. The assessing authority has completed the best judgment assessment both under KGST and CST Acts by merely incorporating the findings and conclusions reached by the Intelligence Officer while passing the order levying penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act. The order of best judgment assessment passed by the assessing authority is extracted in order to appreciate the stand of the assessees learned counsel Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen. The same is as under:-

."I have independently verified the records and found that the defects noticed are still exists. Departmental delivery notes recovered by the intelligence wing not produced for my verification. The total turnover as per monthly returns conceded as Rs.47659047/-whereas as per accounts it is conceded as Rs.474,85,047. The difference comes to Rs.1,74,000/-This is not explained. In view of the above observations, it is pr