R.R.Rastogi, J. - (1.) These four revisions can be conveniently disposed of together. The assessee, M/s. Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works Limited, Behari Niwas, Kanpur, carried on business in manufacture of textile machines and parts, etc. It is registered both under the U.P. and the Central Sales Tax Acts. For the assessment year 1971-72, the accounts of the assessee maintained in respect of intra-State transactions were rejected mainly for two reasons : firstly that there was difference in the books and returned figures and secondly that the turnover disclosed in proportion to the electricity consumed when compared with the immediately preceding year appeared to be very much inadequate. The accounts of the assessee maintained in respect of inter-State transaction as well were rejected for the reason that the accounts in respect of intra-State transactions had been rejected. Accordingly the assessing officer determined the taxable turnover both under the U.P. and the Central Acts to the best of his judgment.
(2.) Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) confirmed the rejection of accounts but allowed some relief in the quantum of taxable turnovers. From that decision cross-revisions were filed both by the assessee and the department in so far as the assessment under the U.P. Act was concerned and by the assessee alone in regard to the assessment under the Central Act. The Additional Judge (Revisions) confirmed the rejection of accounts which relate to intra-State transactions but allowed some further reduction in the taxable turnover and from that decision the assessee has filed S.T.R. No. 175 of 1980 and the department has filed S.T.R. Nos. 142 and 143 of 1980. In the revision in respect of the assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act the learned Additional Judge (Revisions) accepted the assessee's contention that its accounts could not be rejected. However, he did not accept the assessee's claim of tax at concessional rate. According to the assessee it had made all the sales against C forms and hence was liable to tax at 3 per cent only. It was found that one C form No. 064850 was in respect of two bills Nos. 100 and 116 dated 14th April, 1971, and 25th May, 1971, respectively. Those bills were for Rs. 42.23 and Rs. 12,669 respectively. Since the aggregate of those bills was more than Rs. 5,000, in the opinion of the Additional Judge (Revisions), the declaration was to be rejected in its totality and hence in respect of the aforesaid amount tax was liable to be charged at 10 per cent. From this order the assessee has filed S.T.R. No. 174 of 1980.
(3.) I shall first take up the assessment made under the Central Act. As noted above, the Additional Judge (Revisions), disagreeing with the revenue authorities, held that since no defect had been found in the accounts of the assessee relating to inter-State transactions, they could not be rejected. The department has not disputed this finding of the Additional Judge (Revisions). The only question which remains for consideration is as to whether because of the fact that one declaration form had been given in respect of two transactions the aggregate of which in terms of money exceeded Rs. 5,000, could the assessee be denied benefit of that declaration in its totality. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the view taken by the Additional Judge (Revisions) is erroneous, finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kanpur Engineering Stores 1976 UPTC 326. It has been laid down in that case that Rule 8(1-C) of the Uttar Pradesh Central Sales Tax Rules, 1957, or its proviso do not postulate the rejection of the declaration in its totality where more than one transaction is comprised in one declaration and the total amount thereof exceeds Rs. 5,000. In other words the assessee is entitled to the benefit of this declaration in respect of one transaction only. The question, therefore, will have to be decided by the revising authority afresh keeping in view the legal aspect as discussed above.;