Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) 1. Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 07.10.1999 relating to the assessment year 1994-95.
(2.) Applicant was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of different sizes of gitti and bhassi. Admittedly applicant had not maintained the manufacturing account as required under section 12 (2) of the Act. Assessing authority rejected the books of account and by way of best judgment assessment estimated the taxable turn over at Rs.16,59,050/- as against the disclosed turn over at Rs.5,93,765/-. First appeal was allowed in part and the turn over has been estimated at Rs.15,41,180/-. Being aggrieved by the order, applicant as well as Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected both the appeals. Tribunal has confirmed the rejection of books of account for non-maintenance of manufacturing account as required under section 12 (2) of the Act. Tribunal, however, accepted the sale of the disclosed quantity of the gitti and bhassi but has rejected the average selling rate and estimated the turn over taking the average selling rate of gitti at Rs.900/- per truck and bhassi at Rs.260/-per truck. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the estimate of average selling rate is without any basis and excessive. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. Applicant had not maintained the manufacturing account as required under section 12 (2) of the Act. Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. M/s Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar, reported in 1997 UPTC, 213 held that the maintenance of manufacturing account as required under section 12 (2) of the Act is mandatory. It has been further held that in the absence of the manufacturing account turn over has to be estimated by way of best judgment assessment. Learned counsel for the applicant is not able to tell that in any other case lesser average selling rate of gitti and bhassi has been fixed by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter revision has no merit. In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.;