- (1.) R. K. GULATI, J. These are four connected trade tax revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow, against the same assessee. In respect of the assessment year 1984-85 and are directed against a common order dated July 28, 1997 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal Bench, Saharanpur. Two of these revisions arise from the proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the other two arise from the assessment proceedings under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. It may also be pointed out that the assessments both under the U. P. Trade Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the years in question were made in two parts. In this way four separate assessment orders were made and consequently four revisions have been filed. As common questions are involved which arise from the identical facts, it is convenient to dispose of all these revisions together. Heard learned Standing Counsel in support of these revisions.
(2.) IN the year in question the assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of rice. The turnover disclosed by the assessee was not accepted and the assessments were made on best judgment. On appeal against each assessment order a part relief was allowed in the quantum of turnover assessed. Aggrieved by the appellate orders, the assessee as well as the Revenue filed cross-appeals before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed and those filed by the assessee were allowed. It is in this background these four revisions have been filed. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel was that the Tribunal erred in accepting the book version of the assessee and in taking the view that there was no material available for rejection of the account books. The account books of the assessee were rejected for two reasons, namely, the consumption of electricity was more as compared to the other rice millers engaged in similar business and secondly that the recovery of rice shown was less than what was expected in that trade. With regard to the second ground it has come on record that in cases of other rice millers recovery of rice at 64. 8 per cent to 64. 5 per cent was accepted by the department as reasonable. As in the case of the assessee the recovery shown was 64. 68 per cent, the Tribunal held that the account books could not have been rejected on the ground of low recovery of rice. As regard the consumption of electricity relying upon a decision of this Court in Shyam Rice Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP. 1988 UPTC 375, the Tribunal held that the account books on this score also could not have been rejected. In the decision referred by the Tribunal the view taken is that an excess consumption of electricity may give rise to a suspicion and may call for a deeper scrutiny of the accounts but in the absence of any other material the account books cannot be rejected on suspicion alone. In the present case also except for the allegation that the consumption of the electricity was more as compared to the other rice millers no other material was available which may go to show that the assessee was carrying on business outside the account books. On the contrary the account books maintained by the assessee were found acceptable in other respects. On the facts, in my opinion, the Tribunal was clearly right in setting aside the findings about the rejection of the account books. The rejection of the books of account is a serious matter and it cannot be 4one lightly unless there are good grounds available to prove satisfactorily that the account books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete. In other words the books are to be accepted unless on verification they disclosed any faults or defects.
(3.) IT was next contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the interest which was levied for the non-payment of admitted tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. There is no merit in this contention also. The Tribunal has found it as a fact that inadvertently the assessee had deposited more tax for the year in question under the U. P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 than it was due on the basis of return. The assessing authority itself gave adjustment under the Central Sales Tax Act for that part of the excess amount which was found refundable after adjusting the extra amount of liability which fell due under the U. P. Trade Tax Act on account of best judgment assessment. As the turnover returned was accepted the entire excess deposit became available for adjustment against the amounts of tax due under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal further found that after the said adjustment the assessee was not liable for any interest. In taking such an approach, in my opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error of law. There is another aspect of the matter also. In India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam [1997] 106 STC 460, the Supreme Court has held that interest can be levied and charged on delayed payment of tax only if the statute that levied and charges the tax makes a substantive provision in this behalf. There is no substantive provision under the Central Sales Tax Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax which obliges the assessee to pay interest on delayed payment of tax due under that Act. The Supreme Court further held as under : " The substantive law that the sales tax authorities of the State must apply in assessing and collecting Central sales tax is the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In such application for procedural purposes alone, the provisions of the State Act are available. The provisions in the latter part of section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act can be employed by the sales tax authorities of the State only if the Central Act makes a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on Central sales tax and only to that extent. There being no substantive provision in the Central Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax, the sales tax authorities of the State cannot, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing payment of Central sales tax, charge interest thereon. ";