V.K.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., has challenged in this revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Moradabad, accepting the books of account of the dealer, opposite party in this revision, for the year 1973-74. These accounts had been rejected by the authorities below.
(2.) The admitted position is that the dealer did not issue any cash memos in the year in question. In the opinion of the Tribunal, non-issuance of cash memos, by itself was not enough to reject the accounts even though it was imperative for the dealer to have issued those cash memos. The view of the Tribunal is not sound for it has been held by this Court that non-issuance of the cash memos in accordance with the provision of Section 8-A(4) was a sufficient ground for rejecting the accounts of the dealer: see Jamuna Das Nemi Chand v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow 1979 ATJ 144 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow v. Jaiswal Iron Stores, Deoria 1981 ATJ 102.
(3.) It is true that technically the accounts of the dealer were liable to be rejected on account of non-issuance by him of cash memos, but that does not necessarily mean that the disclosed taxable turnover of the dealer need also be rejected. The assessing authority had found several discrepancies for taking the view that the accounts of the dealer were not worthy of acceptance. In appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) did not agree with the assessing authority In respect of any discrepancy other then the non-issuance of cash memos. It is obvious that apart from non-issuance of cash menus, the accounts of the dealer did not disclose any infirmity making them unworthy of acceptance. The Tribunal has noticed in its order that in the preceeding two years 1971-72 and 1972-73 also the accounts of the dealer were accepted. Further) that as against the taxable turnover of Rs. 1,07,907.53 disclosed by him in the year 1972-73, the taxable turnover disclosed by the dealer in the year in question was to an extent of Rs. 1,30,673.27; Clearly there was a progressive increase in it. In the totality, it cannot be said that in upholding the disclosed turnover of the dealer, the Tribunal acted arbitrarily.;