K. C. BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) The assessee in the present case is a manufacturer and seller of tin containers. According to the assessee for the year 1982-83 he disclosed the taxable turnover at Rs. 6,26,971. 35 and admitted his tax liability at Rs. 24,242. 95. The assessing authority rejected the stock books of the assessee on the basis of survey report dated September 18, 1982, as the same was adverse against him. The assessing authority, therefore, after rejecting the account books of the assessee made best judgment assessment. Aggrieved against that order the assessee filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) allowed the appeal and accepted the turnover as disclosed by the assessee even after rejecting the account books. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , went in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the Sales Tax Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial ). Aggrieved against that order, the assessee has come up in revision and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , have been heard. Learned counsel for the assessee has argued that the account books of the applicant have been rejected for the assessment year 1982-83 on the basis of survey report of 1982. According to him at that time no incriminating material was found with the assessee and the only material against the assessee was that his account register was not complete on the date of survey. According to the assessee his stock register was completed only up to September 8, 1982. According to the learned counsel for the assessee this is not a sound ground for rejection of the account books of the assessee. Even if the stock register was not found compete on the date on which the survey was made, this alone cannot justify the rejection of the account books. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has argued that under the provisions of section 12 (2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 an assessee, who is a manufacturer, is bound to maintain the stock books and as the stock book was not found complete on the date of survey the account books of the assessee were rightly rejected. Learned Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) has accepted the contention of the assessee that even if the account books of the assessee are rejected, the turnover disclosed by the assessee can be accepted. He has given cogent reasons for coming to this conclusion and has also referred to a decision of this Court. The Sales Tax Tribunal has come to a different conclusion on this point. According to the finding of the Tribunal the stock register was found written up to September 8, 1982, at the time of survey. The explanation which was given by the assessee was rejected. This Court is not concerned as to whether the explanation was rejected or not, because even if it is assumed that account books are rejected on the basis of survey dated September 18, 1982, even then it has to be seen as to whether the turnover disclosed by the assessee has to be rejected or not ? The finding of the Tribunal on this point cannot be sustained because the finding of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was based on the case law of this Court. The view of this Court has been that even if the account books are rejected, the turnover disclosed by the assessee should not always be rejected. This means that even if the account books are rejected the turnover disclosed by the assessee can be accepted keeping in view the facts of a particular case. One of the grounds which weighed with the Sales Tax Department for rejecting the account books on the date of survey was that there was discrepancy in the stock itself. At that time there were 72,000 containers of 50 grams. It was disclosed that 6,000 containers of the same capacity were manufactured on the date of survey. The Tribunal has also mentioned that when physical verification was done the containers were found to be 8,168. This observation in the judgment of the Tribunal is not correct. The assessee has produced original survey reports, which had also been seen by the learned Standing Counsel and from those survey reports the learned Standing Counsel could not make out as to whether any physical verification was also done on the date of survey and whether 8,168 tin boxes were found in the stock. It may be mentioned that the survey report shows that the survey was started at 3 p. m. on September 18, 1982. The figure of 6,000 containers, which were prepared by that time, was disclosed by the assessee. Thereafter also, the containers were manufactured by the assessee, but the assessee could not have disclosed their figures because those containers were in semi-finished condition at that stage and they had been manufactured later on. The surveying officer never enquired from the assessee as to what was the number of the semi-finished containers. When such was the case, the assessee was not bound to disclose the number of semi-finished containers as has been mentioned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee has not disclosed the total number of fully manufactured tin containers on the date of survey. The assessee was only bound to disclose the fully manufactured tin containers at the time when he was asked to furnish this information. He was never asked to furnish the information as to how many tin containers were manufactured at the end of the day. This figure of total manufactured tin containers during the day was found in the stock book of the assessee as will be apparent from the judgment of the assessing officer. Therefore, in view of the facts on record it is clear that the Tribunal has wrongly read in the survey report that at the time of survey a physical verification was done and 8,168 tin containers were found fully manufactured. On account of this discrepancy, the Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee had not disclosed the correct number of the manufactured tin containers and on this ground that account-books of the assessee were rejected. This ground does not hold good and the finding of the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside. There is no other point on which the account books of the assessee were rejected. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, this ground alone is not sufficient to reject the account books of the assessee. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was perfectly justified in accepting the turnover disclosed by the assessee inspite of having rejected the account books. The order of the Sales Tax Tribunal deserves to be set aside and that of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is to be restored. The revision is allowed with costs and the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal is set aside. The order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) dated September 4, 1984 is restored. Petition allowed. .;