C. S. P. Singh, J. - The Additional Revising Authority, Sales Tax, Allahabad Range has referred the following question for out opinion :
'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Revising Authority was legally justified in accepting the account books of the dealer despite the recovery, in the survey dated 18-12-1965 of two unaccounted purchase vouchers of Rs. 783.38 and Rs. 101.70 and a letter of a businessman of Rewari addressed to the dealer in the light of the explanation of the dealer ?'
The assessee deals in brasswares and scrap. In the assessment year 1965-66, he filed a return showing a turnover of Rs. 85,660/-. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the book version and estimated the turnover at Rs. 250,000/-. On appeal the turnover was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. The assessee preferred a revision before the Revising Authority, who set aside the addition made by estimate and accept the returned turnover.
2. While reducing the quantum of turnover from Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,00.000/- the Assistant Commissioner held that although the account books of the applicant were properly maintained, yet as on 18-12-1965, when a survey was conducted two Bijaks of Rs. 101.70 were not entered in the books of account of the assessee, the books could not be accepted. The Revising Authority had found that inasmuch as the account books of the applicant had been properly maintained, the mere fact that at the time of survey on 18-12-1968, two Bijaks relating to Rs. 783.38 and Rs. 101.70 were not posted in the books of account, were not sufficient for rejection. He also held that a letter purported to have been written by a businessman of Rewari, suggesting that the assessee maintained two sets of accounts, could not be relied on for rejection of the account books of the assessee, as the assessee was not the author of the letter and there was no other material on the basis of which such an inference could be drawn.
3. Counsel for the state has taken us through the order of the revising authority as also the order of the Assistant Commissioner, and contended that inasmuch as entries in respect of two Bijaks aforesaid were not made by the assessee in his account books, the Revising Authority erred in accepting the book version. The order of Assistant Commissioner shows that entry in respect of these two items were not made in the books of accounts at the time of survey. There is no finding that the assessee did not enter these transactions later. In fact, the assessee in his explanation before the Sales Tax Officer stated that the amount representated purchases made by the Munim of the assessee, who had on a day earlier been advanced an amount of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 10/- for making purchases from Kanpur. In these circumstances, and in the absence of finding to this effect, it cannot be contended that no entries in respect of these transactions were made at all in the account books. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, is the last fact finding authority and it was open to him to accept the book version after considering the evidence. It cannot also be said that the finding recorded by him in these circumstances, is based on no material or is arbitrary.
4. We, accordingly answer the question referred in the affirmative against the Department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200/-.