C.S.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Bareilly Range, Bareilly has under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax referred the following question for our opinion : - 'Whether there was any material in support of the taxable turnover fixed by the Judge (Revision) for the assessment year 1966 -67 ?'
(2.) THERE are two other reference viz. S.T.R. No. 422 of 1973 and S.T.R. No. 423 of 1973 relating to the years 1967 -68 and 1968 -69 while the present reference relates to the year 1966 -67. The Judge (Revisions) disposed of the revisions for all these three assessment years by a common order and as such we propose to give a resume of all the three years in the present order for the sake of convenience. The assessee is a dealer in gur, rab, oil seeds and food grains etc. For the year 1966 -67, the assessee showed purchase of goods from unregistered dealers at Rs. 330 -70 and sale of Gur to unregistered dealers as selling agents at Rs. 1,768.73. Sales of hemp were shown at Rs. 6,081.73. Sales tax liability on the aforesaid sales according to the return of the dealers, was to Rs. 104.95 and Rs. 121.64. As against the returned turnover, the Sales Tax Officer fixed the turnover of the first item at Rs. 1,50.000/ - while that of hemp at Rs. 15,000/ -. In the year 1967 -68, the assessee showed a net turnover of purchase of gur at Rs. 4083.59 as against which the assessing authority fixed the turnover at Rs. 1,50,000/ - for gur and for oil seeds at Rs. 20,000/ -. For the year 1968 -69, the assessee did not admit any taxable turnover but the assessing authority fixed the first purchase of gur and rab at Rs. 1,50,000/ - and oil seeds at Rs. 20,000/ -. Appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed.
(3.) FROM the record, it appears that the two surveys of the assessees shop were made, one on 29 -7 -1966 and the other on 29 -1 -1969. The first survey was relevant to the year 1966 -67 and the other for the year 1968 -69. No survey was made for the year 1967 -68. In the survey made on 29 -7 -1966, the only defect found was that the assessees roker was posted upto 25 -7 -66 and the explanation for not making entries in the rokar on 26th, 27th and 28th July 1966 was that there had been no transactions on those dates, as the assessee dealt primarily in gur and no sale was made as it was rainy season. This explanation was not accepted by the Assessing Authority and by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Judge revision accepted the rejection of the account books for the years 1966 -67 by the subordinate authorities since no question relating to the rejection of the account books for the years 1966 -67 has to be considered in the present reference, we have to take it that the accounts books were rightly rejected for the year 1966 -67. For the years 1967 -68 although there was no survey, the Judge (Revisions) held that inasmuch as the accounts for the years 1966 -67 and 1968 -69 had been rejected, a logical inference could be drawn that the accounts for the years 1967 -68 were also incorrect. At this stage, it is necessary to point out that for the years 1967 -68, one of the questions referred in S.T.R. 422 of 1973 relates to the rejection of the account books. So far as the years 1968 -69 is concerned, a survey was made on 29 -1 -1969. It was found that transactions were recorded in 47 loose ships and two other papers. The Sales Tax Officer, however, returned these documents to the assessee. As the time of the assessment, the assessee produced only 21 slips out of 47 slips and stated that only 21 loose sheets of papers were recovered and not 47. The Assessing Authority rejected the accounts entries of transactions had not been produced by the assessee. Even as respects the 21 slips produced by the assessee, it was found that the transactions recorded on 19 slips only were entered in the account books while the transaction recorded on the two remaining slips were omitted. No explanation was also forthcoming about the omission of the transaction recorded in the two other papers.;