LUXCO ELECTRONICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has come up before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge of this Court. The facts leading to this reference may be shortly stated.

(2.) In the assessment year in question the account books of the assessee, who dealt in loud-speakers, amplifiers and parts was rejected and the turnover estimated. Two reasons were given by the assessing authority for rejecting the accounts, one was that there was a difference in the book version and the turnover shown in the return, and the second was that the assessee had not maintained a manufacturing register. When the matter came up in revision at the instance of the assessee, the explanation given by the assessee for the difference in the turnover as shown in the accounts and that given in the return was accepted, but the rejection was upheld on account of the assessee not having maintained a manufacturing register as required by Section 12(2) of the Act.

(3.) The effect of not complying with the provisions of Section 12(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was considered by one of us in the case of Haleem Brothers, Allahabad v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1979 U.P.T.C. 761, and it was held that the provisions of Section 12(2) were mandatory, and if the assessee's account books were not maintained as required by Section 12(2), the assessing authority could refuse to rely on them. The learned single Judge desired the matter to be considered by a larger Bench, as he appears to disagree with the reasonings of Haleem Brothers' case 1979 U.P.T.C. 761. The reasons which weighed with the learned single Judge for making the reference were these: