SURESH CHAND ASHOK KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment dated 21st September, 1985, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Saharanpur, relating to assessment year 1978-79.

(2.) The assessee deals in foodgrains, gur; khandsari, oil-seeds, etc. Books of account of the assessee were rejected by all the three authorities and best judgment assessment was passed. I have heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee and the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax. Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal urged that the grounds on which the books of account of the assessee had been rejected by the authorities are wholly irrelevant and books of account could not be rejected on the said ground. The fact which has been taken into account by the Tribunal for rejecting the books of account is that on survey dated 7th August, 1978, the godown was not opened for inspection of the assessing authority. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that the said ground was not relevant for rejecting the books of account, even if the assessee did not co-operate with the surveying officer at the time of survey. And in support of his contention he has placed reliance on a decision of this-Court in Paramount Trading Corporation, Moradabad v. Commissioner, Sales Tax 1976 UPTC 245 and I am in full agreement with the said decision that the mere fact that the assessee did not co-operate with the surveying officer at the time of survey could not by itself be a ground for rejecting the books of account. The other factor which has been taken into account is that there was shortage in the stocks. That too according to the assessee is not relevant ground for rejecting the books of account with which I also agree. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, on the contrary stated that apart from the above two factors the other factor which weighed with the Tribunal was that the cash box was not opened for counting by the assessee at the time of survey. In my opinion that by itself could not be a sufficient ground for rejecting the books of account. Having heard the counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set a side.

(3.) In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed to pass suitable order under Section 11(8) of the Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.