SRINARAYAN TRADERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are dealers in grocery. The references relate to the quarters ending 31st December, 1957, to 31st March, 1959. The Sales Tax Officer initially found the following defects in the accounts of the dealers :

(2.) ON account of the aforesaid defects, the books of account were rejected and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, passed a best of judgment assessment. Against the order of the Sales Tax Officer the petitioners went up in appeal. The cases were remanded, in order to give an opportunity to the dealers to explain the defects. After remand, the Sales Tax Officer was satisfied with the explanations of the dealers in respect of defects (i), (ii), (iv) and (v), but rejected the explanation in respect of defect No. (iii) which related to the failure to account for transactions with Ghanshyamdas Nirmalkumar of Rourkela. The Sales Tax Officer ultimately disbelieved the accounts and raised the gross turnover by Rs. 50,000 per quarter. The appeals before the first appellate authority and the Tribunal were unsuccessful.

(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal on a question of fact, can be interfered with by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, on the ground that the conclusion was the result of an error of record, which ultimately affected the decision. As already pointed out, the Sales Tax Officer accepted the explanation of the dealer in regard to defect No. (iv) relating to the discovery of loose slips of paper. It was open to the Tribunal, as the final authority on facts, to re -examine the matter and reject the explanation offered by the dealers. The Tribunal however did not exercise its jurisdiction in that manner. On the contrary, under an erroneous impression that the explanation of the dealer in respect of the aforesaid defect was rejected, it held that the enhanced assessment was correctly made. The Tribunal thus -without applying its mind to the materials and the explanation -committed an error of record which vitiated its ultimate conclusion. Its judgment gives no reasons for taking a different view from that taken by the assessing authority. As a result of this error, its finding that the accounts were incorrectly maintained is vitiated. Such a finding is not binding upon this court.