Skip to content


Commissioner, Sales Tax Vs. Khera Shoe Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Sales Tax Reference No. 1 of 1972
Judge
Reported in[1975]36STC220(All)
AppellantCommissioner, Sales Tax
RespondentKhera Shoe Co.
Appellant Advocate Standing Counsel
Respondent Advocate R.R. Agarwal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- - sales tax rules and made the best judgment assessment. 4. in view of this decision, it is obvious that after finding that the account books maintained by the assessee had been kept in the ordinary course of business and the entries made therein were verifiable and that they were reliable, they could not be rejected merely because the assessee did not maintain the stock register contemplated by rule 72(2) of the u......have to be rejected.4. in view of this decision, it is obvious that after finding that the account books maintained by the assessee had been kept in the ordinary course of business and the entries made therein were verifiable and that they were reliable, they could not be rejected merely because the assessee did not maintain the stock register contemplated by rule 72(2) of the u. p. sales tax rules.5. in the result, the second question referred to us for opinion is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.6. in view of our answer given to the second question, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the first question, viz., whether the assessee was liable to maintain manufacturing account under rule 72(2). the first question is, therefore, left unanswered.7......
Judgment:

H.N. Seth, J.

1. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Agra, has stated the case and referred the following two questions of law for the opinion of this court:

(1) Whether, under the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the assessee was liable to maintain manufacturing account under Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules and

(2) Whether, under the circumstances and on the facts of the case, the disclosed sales of the assessee should have been disbelieved for non-maintenance of proper account under Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules ?

2. The assessee, Messrs. Khera Shoe Company, is a manufacturer of and dealer in shoes. It disclosed its gross sales in the disputed year at Rs. 13,63,090.33 which, included both inter-State and intra-State sales. The assessing officer rejected the account books of the assessee, inter alia, on the ground that it did not maintain manufacturing account under Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules and made the best judgment assessment.

3. In appeal, the assessee's books were accepted and it was assessed to sales tax accordingly. The Commissioner of Sales Tax went up in revision. In revision it was held that the assessee had duly maintained karigar register and job-card register. Both these registers had been examined by the appellate authority which found that daily production of shoes had been shown therein. No defect could be pointed out in these registers. The Judge (Revisions) held that in the circumstances it was not obligatory upon the assessee to maintain the stock register and its books could not be rejected merely because it did not maintain one in accordance with Rule 72(2). In the case of Devi Charan Sri Mohan Dass, Kadamtar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1973 U.P.T.C. 519, a Division Bench of this Court has ruled that Rule 72 does not prescribe any system of accounting. It merely prescribes what information should be available in the account books. If the account books are found to be kept in the ordinary course of business and are open to verification, they have to be accepted. There is no provision in the Sales Tax Act which prescribes that accounts must be maintained in a particular manner. Even Rule 72 does not say that if it is not complied with the accounts will have to be rejected.

4. In view of this decision, it is obvious that after finding that the account books maintained by the assessee had been kept in the ordinary course of business and the entries made therein were verifiable and that they were reliable, they could not be rejected merely because the assessee did not maintain the stock register contemplated by Rule 72(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules.

5. In the result, the second question referred to us for opinion is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.

6. In view of our answer given to the second question, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the first question, viz., whether the assessee was liable to maintain manufacturing account under Rule 72(2). The first question is, therefore, left unanswered.

7. The assessee will be entitled to receive the costs of this reference, which we assess at Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //