R. K. GULATI, J. - (1.) This is a sales tax revision filed at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow, and is directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Kanpur, passed in Second Appeal No. 60 of 1988 (assessment year 1982-83 ). The following question has been raised for consideration of this Court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was legally justified in accepting the books of account of the assessee inspite of the fact that the sales disclosed were lower than the cost of the goods worked out at Kanpur depot and the depot had no authority to sell the goods at a price below the minimum prescribed by the head office ?" The opposite party assessee is a public limited company and has its head office at Porbandar, Gujarat. During the assessment year 1982-83 the assessee carried on business in sale of soda, soda caustic and soda bi-carb, etc. , which it received from its head office. The account books of the assessee were rejected primarily on the ground that the total sale price charged from the customers, which had been shown as sales turnover, was less than value of the goods calculated at the rate on which the goods were received from the head office. According to the Revenue authorities the value of the goods received for sale was Rs. 1,19,53,206. 54 while the sale proceeds shown was Rs. 1,17,23,663. The case of the assessee was that it had maintained its account books in due course and they were reliable in all respects and the turnover returned was verifiable from the account books. It was also the case of the assessee that the head office had given general rate of the commodity and the local sales office in the State was permitted to exercise its own discretion in the matter of allowing its own trade discount to its customers. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee and further found that the assessee had granted trade discount to various customers which was not found factually incorrect. No defects in the account books were noticed which might call for rejection of account books. The goods were transferred from the head office against form "f" and form 31. No suppression of sales, in receipt of goods and in sale proceeds was noticed by the Revenue authorities nor nay such instance had been referred to either in the assessment order or in the order of the first appellate authority. On these findings the Tribunal directed the acceptance of the account books and held as under : ". . . . . No suppression has been found in the quantity of receipts shown in the books. No specific instance has been pointed out in which the claim of granting of discount has been found to be false or wrong. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the account books of the dealer could not be rejected merely on the ground that excess discount has been allowed by the dealer. The account books are duly audited. Further, the head office also exercises control over the local sale office. There is no adverse survey. The book figures are accordingly accepted. " The contention of the learned standing counsel that the goods could not have been sold below the cost or for a price less than on which the goods were transferred from the head office, has no substance. It was not disputed that the assessee had maintained regular account books which were produced before the assessing authority for their scrutiny during the course of assessment proceedings. The findings of the Tribunal that no defects were found in the account books, nor any specific suppression was noticed, were not disputed during the course of argument and indeed, no such challenge has been made in the question that has been posed for the consideration of this Court and has been extracted above. The machinery for determination of turnover and assessment of tax is contemplated under section 7 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and rule 41 of the Rules framed under the Act. Rule 41 prescribes the manner amongst others in which returns are to be submitted. Section 7 (2) of the Act stipulates that if the assessing authority after such inquiry as he considers necessary, is satisfied that any returns submitted under the section are correct and complete, he shall assess the tax on the tax on the basis thereof. Sub-section (3) of that section says, inter alia, that if the return submitted by the dealer appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete, the assessing authority shall after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, determine the turnover of the dealer to the best of his judgment and assess the tax on the basis thereof. Under the Act, therefore, the assessment may be made to the best of the Sales Tax Officer's judgment in cases in which returns filed are not accepted or found to be incorrect or incomplete. Section 12 of the Act contemplates for accounts to be maintained by dealers. Sub-section (1) of that provision says that every dealer including a dealer exempted from tax on payment of fee under any provisions of the Act, shall keep and maintain a true and correct account showing the value of the goods sold and bought by him, and in case the accounts maintained in the ordinary course do not show the same in an intelligible form, he shall maintain true and correct account in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf. The proviso attached to that sub-section exempts the dealers from maintaining the accounts who are not liable to taxation under the Act. Sub-section (2) of section 12 provides for maintenance of an additional accounts in case of a manufacturer. It says that a manufacturer liable to pay tax under the Act shall in addition to the account books referred to in sub-section (1), maintain stock books in respect of raw materials as well as the products obtained at every stage of production. Section 8-A (4) of the Act mandates a dealer to issue cash memo or bill without prejudice to the provisions of section 12. This is irrespective of the provisions for maintenance of account books, such as stock register, manufacturing register. An exception has been provided in respect of sales below Rs. 5 and to small dealers whose turnover does not exceed Rs. 48,000. The provisions referred hereinabove, do not provide for any particular system in which the accounts are to be maintained except in case of a manufacturer whose case may be governed by sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act. All that is contemplated is the maintainability of the accounts in an intelligible form. What is material is verifiability of sale and purchase. The credibility of account books is not open to doubt unless it is found that sales and purchases are not verifiable. Efficacy of account books is to verify the entries in the return on which tax is quantified. On the other hand, the non-maintenance of accounts or irregular maintenance of accounts would expose the assessee to the risk of the assessing authority estimating the turnover to his best judgment. The power to make an assessment on best judgment is traceable to sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act. In St. Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1970] 25 STC 497; [1970] 76 ITR 365, a division Bench of the Kerala High Court held as under : " Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. The department has to prove satisfactorily that the account books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete before it can reject the accounts. The rejection of accounts should not be done light-heartedly. Though it may not be possible to lay down the exact circumstances in which the accounts should be rejected as unreliable or incorrect, the accounts may be rejected as unreliable if important transactions are omitted therefrom or if proper particulars and vouchers are not forthcoming or if they do not include entries relating to a particular class of business. The assessee should be given reasonable opportunity for offering explanations regarding the defects in the accounts and, on his failure to satisfactorily explain the defects, the department would be justified in rejecting the accounts. The rejection of accounts and assessment to the best of judgment are two distinct and separate processes. " It would be wrong to say that the Act clothe the taxing authority with any power or jurisdiction to dictate how a dealer or an assessee should conduct himself in his business affairs. It is essentially for the tax-payer to manage his business affairs or to conduct his business according to his wisdom or otherwise. In the instant case, if the assessee thought it proper in order to promote the sales or to push its product in the market to allow trade discount of varying amounts to its customers, depending upon the market situation and other relevant factors, the Revenue cannot legally object to it nor it can take any exception to the manner in which the assessee has conducted its business. The account books can be rejected only on the grounds which are well-established of which some reference has been made earlier. The claim of the assessee that it had sold the goods below the expected market price, may be a warning to put the Revenue on alert which may call for a thorough and detailed scrutiny of the account books. However, if no adverse material is found despite the scrutiny, the account books cannot be rejected on suspicion and surmises alone. Where the genuineness and regularity of the accounts are not challenged, the accounts are relevant and are prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under section 34 of the Evidence Act. To put it differently, the rejection of account books cannot be made on a pretext. IF the returns would be substantiated and the figures disclosed therein are verifiable from the account books in which no defect is noted, the assessing authority is not legally empowered to reject the account version and to proceed to make assessment on best judgment in disregard of the account books and the disclosed results. The Tribunal in the instant case has found as a fact that no defects were found in the accounts of the assessee. The Tribunal was well within its limit to direct the assessment on the disclosed turnover and to set aside the finding with regard to rejection of the account books. For what has been stated above, this revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed. .;