ABDULLAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur dated 20th November, 1961 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-applicant deals in the sawing of stones. No returns having been submitted by him a notice was given requiring him to submit his accounts. No accounts were submitted. Only two bill-books were produced. The learned Sales Tax Officer after examining these books held them to be not reliable. He examined the assessee and his brother and found that the replies by Sri Ibrahim, the brother of the applicant, were very evasive. He then made enquiries through the Sales Tax Inspector concerned and found that the turnover of the sawing of stones of the applicant for the year 1956-57 (the year of assessment) ranged between Rs. 9000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on the basis of this he estimated the total taxable turn over of the applicant to be Rs. 30,000/- according to the best of this judgment and also imposed a penalty. THIS was challenged by the applicant in appeal. The learned Deputy Commissioner examined the case and observed as follows: - "it is obvious from the statement of the appellant himself on the record that during the year under appeal he had been owning quarry No. 294/7 and that his brother and nephew had no other quarries in their name. Moreover, it has also been stated by him (appellant) in his statement dated 27. 3. 61 made at the time of assessment that he has been getting the Chirai of the stones done by cash payment as well as by payment in the shape of half quantity stones. It is also a point for consideration that when the appellant had been issuing sale bills, he could not have maintained any accounts of the Chirai charges paid by him to the different factory owners. As is clear from the record of the lower court there was only one business premises for which the appellant says that the goods within that premises belongs to his brothers and nephew which is hardly believable in view of the fact that his brothers and nephew had no other quarries in their names as well as they arc not found to have any separate registration certificate, for stone business. One thing for which I take a serious notice regarding the appellant is that while in his statement referred to above it is stated that the quarry was closed only a year back while in his affidavit before me filed on 27. 6. 61 the quarry was stated to remain closed in the year 1956-57. "after thoroughly considering the whole position I do not feel any justification for interfering with the assessment order passed by the lower court and reject the ground for excessiveness or arbitrariness in the best judgment assessment in the absence of maintaining any proper and reliable accounts by the appellant. "

(2.) IN this revision the facts of the case are not at all contested by the applicant. What is contended is that the Sales Tax INspector had submitted two reports and the learned Sales Tax Officer had relied on the one and not the other. We have examined the record and we do not find that it is so. No contradictory reports have been submitted by the Sales Tax INspector. Rather in all his reports he has tried to give certain information about the dealings of the applicant and after making enquiries he has submitted that the accounts of the sawing of stones done by the applicant amount to Rs. 9000/-,