KHALSA TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision filed under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, arises from the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1983-84. During that year the assessee dealt in sale of transistors, records and cassettes, etc. Upon rejection of the account books, the taxable turnover was determined on best judgment. Learned counsel for the assessee has challenged the legality of the rejection of account books as well as the quantum of turnover that was brought to tax. Having considered the submissions carefully, in my opinion, there is no substance in either of these two contentions. The account books were found unreliable because of the survey dated April 27, 1983 in which several loose papers were seized that indicated systematic suppression of the turnover to the tune of Rs. 7,000 which were not found recorded in the account books. It was urged that these very loose papers were utilised for rejection of the account books for the immediately preceding assessment year and cannot be made the basis for rejection of the account books for the year in dispute, for this will amount to penalising the assessee for two years on the same material. There is no merit in this contention. It is evident from the order passed by the tax authorities that the transactions found incorporated in the loose papers pertained to the assessment year in question. Whether the account books of the preceding year could be legally rejected on the basis of the loose papers in question, is beside the point as we are not concerned with that issue in the instant case. In so far as the rejection of books of account for the year in question is concerned, it could certainly be rejected when the assessee was found suppressing the turnover and the books of account were not maintained in due course of business. The contention that the account books of the preceding year were said to have been rejected on the strength of the seized loose papers, is of no consequence, for each assessment year is an independent and separate year and the correctness of the turnover returned is to be judged with reference to the relevant material brought on the record. Not only the survey dated April 27, 1983 pertained to the assessment year in question but the material found in the loose sheets also related to the transactions assessable in the year in dispute. The transactions in the loose papers being found not incorporated in the account books, it was a sure indication that the assessee was indulging in suppressing of turnover and the books were not maintained in the ordinary course of business. The contention that the account books were illegally rejected is without any merit and is rejected. Coming to the quantum of assessment, it may be noticed that against the returned net taxable turnover of Rs. 35,853 the assessing officer had estimated the same on his best judgment at Rs. 80,000 which on appeal was reduced to Rs. 50,000. Against the order of the appellate authority cross-appeals were filed both by the assessee as well as by the department before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed while that filed by the Revenue was allowed. The net result was that the assessee was assessed on the turnover of Rs. 80,000 that was estimated by the Sales Tax Officer. The submission that the estimate of turnover was excessive is not acceptable. The transactions recorded in the loose papers were for a period of 27 days and the suppression was found to the extent of Rs. 7,000. The Sales Tax Tribunal while sustaining the assessment order has taken these matters into consideration. A perusal of the order of the assessing authority further reveals that there existed a number of other circumstances which warranted rejection of assessee's account books and enhancement to the returned turnover. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court. The turnover on which the assessment has been made, cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or unjust. The second contention also fails and is rejected. The revision is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .