- (1.) The Commissioner of Sales Tax. Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave by order of this court (order dated 10/12/1982. The appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High court rendered in. STR No. 615 of 1980 dated 7/5/1981. The respondent-assessee carried on business in silver ornaments, utensils and scraps. For the Assessment Year 1974-75 he returned a total turnover of Rs. 1,74,948. 00 which was enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs by the Sales Tax Officer, but reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs in appeal by A. G. (J. ). In further revision, the account books of the assessee along with the disclosed turnover were accepted. The said order was assailed by the Revenue before the Allahabad High court in Sales Tax Revision No. 615 of 1980. The learned Single Judge held that the account books of the assessee were liable to be rejected. But, he took the view that the defect aforesaid being "technical" in nature, the turnover disclosed in the account books should be accepted, and there was no need to determine the turnover afresh. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the Revenue has come up in appeal.
(2.) We heard counsel. Admittedly, the shop of the assessee was inspected on 22/2/1975. Cash amounting to Rs. 3,000. 00 and certain slips were found. There was also variance in the stock at the time of survey. The Additional Judge (Revision) directed the acceptance of the account books of the assessee, since according to him the rejection of accounts was based on suspicion.
(3.) The learned Judge of the High court noticed that the assessee is a manufacturer and did not maintain any book as contemplated by Section 12 (2 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (15 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as"the Act") and so the account books were liable to be rejected. Even so, he took the view that the defect being technical in nature, the turnover disclosed in the account books should be accepted and that the turnover need not be determined afresh. We are of the view that the approach made by the learned Judge of the High court is patently erroneous.;