1. Both these revisions by the State raise a common question of law, though the facts slightly differ. The respondents in both the revisions are Metal Crusher Units, in whose premises an inspection was conducted and turnover estimated on the basis of power consumption.

2. In O.T. Revision No. 124/2014 the Intelligence Officer inspected the place of business of the respondent assessee and called for the books of accounts. The assessee sought adjournment and though it was granted, eventually no books of accounts were produced. The Intelligence Officer, even as per the order at Annexure A “proposed to estimate the sales turnover for the year 2007-08 on the basis of the actual power consumption of the Crusher unit during the year 2007-08 as obtained from the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Thuravoor” (sic). The estimation was made on the basis of the details of the electricity consumed and taxable turnover determined by estimating the turnover probable on consumption of the units of power metered. In first appeal, the First Appellate Authority deleted the estimation made finding that penalty has been imposed merely on technical reason of non-production of books of accounts. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The State is in revision from the above order.

3. In O.T. Revision No. 206/2014 the Intelligence Officer inspected the premises of the respondent assessee on 22.10.2007. The business carried on in the premises was not registered and hence an enquiry was made as to the proprietor of the Unit. Based on the information supplied by the employees, notice was issued to one Sulaiman. The said Sulaiman appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed a reply stating that he had not done any business during the year 2007-08. According to him, the business was conducted by M.K. Marakkar. The Intelligence Officer carried out enquiries on his own and found that the Panchayat licence was issued in the name of M.K. Marakkar, the respondent herein. A notice was hence issued and again estimating the turnover on the basis of the power consumption, taxable turnover was determined for the year 2007-08. The First Appellate Authority set aside the penalty, finding that the Intelligence Officer had not verified whatever books produced by the assessee in a proper manner. An appeal was filed in which the Tribunal agreed with the finding of the First Appellate Authority that there was no proper verification of the books of accounts and also found that there could be no estimation under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for brevity “the KVAT Act” only).

4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing in O.T. Rev. No. 206/2014 and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing in O.T. Rev. No. 124/2014 essentially submit that the facts herein would not indicate an estimation at all and that the determination of turnover based on Electricity consumption is an accepted mode of finding out actual turnover, especially in cases where no books of accounts are produced. The State hence contended that the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in U.K. Monu Timbers vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (3) KHC 111 (authored by one of us); would not be applicable. On facts, a number of other decisions of this Court were produced before us, which we will deal with immediately; since if there is a contrary view expressed we will have to refer the matter to a larger bench.

5. There was no appearance for the respondent in O.T. Revision No. 124/2014. The respondent in O.T Revision No. 206/2014 was represented by the Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Muhammed Kutty. The learned Senior Counsel at first submits that there is unreasonable delay in finalisation of the proceedings. The inspection was conducted on 22.10.2007. First notice in the name of one Sulaiman was issued on 15.03.2009, after two years. A reply was filed by 20.03.2009 contending that he had not done any business. He had also disclo