AJAY OIL MILL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is directed against an order dated August 18, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, whereby it dismissed the assessee's second appeal for the assessment year 1967-68. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Standing Counsel. The assessee deals in the purchase of oil seeds and production of oil. His books of account were not accepted and the turnover of purchase of oil seeds and sale of oil was determined on best judgment assessment vide order dated October 24, 1981. The revisionist preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who upheld the rejection of the books of account as well as assessment of turnover. On second appeal the Tribunal too affirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that there was no justification for the rejection of the books of account and the disclosed turnover should have been accepted. The learned Tribunal has upheld the rejection of the books of account on the ground that there was difference in the returned turnover and the turnover as shown in the books of accounts, the purchase and sale as recorded in the books of accounts were less than the actual purchase and sale, and the dealer did not maintain any manufacturing account. Learned counsel for the revisionist pointed out that in this case the first assessment was made on December 30, 1971, which was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) vide order dated August 23, 1972. A fresh assessment was made on August 24, 1979, which was again set aside by the first appellate authority vide order dated October 24, 1980. Thereafter an assessment on October 24, 1981, was made out of which the present proceeding arises. It is contended that in the assessment order dated August 24, 1979, the assessing officer had accepted the dealer's explanation about the difference and the turnover as shown in the return of sales tax and as shows in the books of account. The concerned assessment order shows that the assessing officer based his finding on the assumption that the explanation was accepted in the earlier assessment order in which there was no such finding. Further, that the assessment was set aside by the first appellate authority without affirming the said finding and, therefore, when the assessment was set aside, the aforesaid observation by the assessing officer also stood set aside and cannot be relied upon now. Reliance was placed on Ganesh Jewellers v. Commissioners, Sales Tax [1987] 66 STC 259 (All.); 1987 UPTC 1004, in which it was held that non-maintenance of purchase vouchers, absence of addresses of the sellers, non-maintenance of stock register, non-preservation of challans for taking the goods out of the city and non-verifiability of the accounts of the dealers cannot be proper grounds for rejecting the accounts of the dealer and for making the best judgment. Reliance was also placed on Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kapoor Sons 1983 UPTC 1163, in which it was observed that the account books cannot be rejected for non-filing of inventory of opening stock and omission to strike the totals. In my view it cannot be laid down as a rule of law as to in what circumstances the books of account can be rejected. It is basically a question of fact to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case the three assessment orders and three appellate orders have been passed and none of the authorities ever accepted the books of account. On this point there are concurrent findings by the assessing officer, the first appellate authority and the Sales Tax Tribunal. Therefore, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 11 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, no justification is made out for interfering with the rejection of the books of account and the assessment of turnover. In my view, therefore, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal and this revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .