S. SANKARASUBBAN, J. –

This tax revision case is filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in T.A. No. 370 of 1996. Revision petitioner was engaged in arrack business. There were three inspections in the petitioner's shop. It was found that the petitioner was not properly maintaining the account. On inspection, there was a shortage of arrack. As per the records, the shortage was 1,660 litres of arrack, which according to the petitioner will be worth only Rs. 100. Hence, an addition of an amount of Rs. 3,34,110 was proposed for the said variation. The assessing authority increased the valuation by Rs. 2,000 while the appellate authority reduced it by Rs. 1,000. In addition to that, an assessment was made with regard to curry rent.

2. So far as the first question is concerned, it is true that the accounts were rejected. But according to us, the addition made on the ground that sale of arrack was suppressed is not correct. As was stated in Kuruvila Chacko v. State of Kerala 1991 KLJ (Tax Cases) 665, the petitioner is only a second seller and is not therefore liable to pay tax on the sales effected by him. There is no reason therefore, for the petit