R. R. MISRA, J. - (1.) During the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee carried on business of rice hulled from dhan. As a result of survey dated 24th July, 1982 the account books of the assessee were rejected and a best judgment assessment was made. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), however, accepted the book version of the assessee and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 25th June, 1987 and the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer has been restored by the Sales Tax Tribunal. I have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. His first submission is that the Tribunal is in error in not accepting the account books of the assessee. I, however, do not agree with the said submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee. In the impugned order the Tribunal has set out various reasons for not accepting the account books of the assessee and has also demonstrated as to how the first appellate authority was wrong in accepting it. Admittedly, as a result of survey dated 24th July, 1982 a parcha was recovered in which a sum of Rs. 400 was found written to have been paid to Shree Chand, partner of the firm and no entry regarding the said payment was entered in the account books. The Tribunal has found that non-mention of the aforesaid amount of payment casts a serious reflection on the veracity of the account books and the Tribunal has, therefore, held that the account books, so produced by the assessee, were not maintained in the regular course of business. A further finding of fact has been recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal that the account books could have been manipulated. The second reason advanced by the Sales Tax Tribunal in its impugned order is that in the statement filed by the dealer, it had shown opening stock of rice bran at nil and the sales shown on 13th May, 1982 were admittedly to the tune of 89. 36 quintals. According to the assessee no manufacturing took place in the months of April and May. Confronted with the situation, the assessee furnished an explanation that the stock of rice bran was included in the stock of rice. Before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the assessee had also stated that the assessee had mixed some rice husk in the quantity of rice shown in the stock. Since all these explanations furnished by the assessee were not verifiable and the Tribunal found that different statements at different stages were given by the assessee, the Sales Tax Tribunal was of the opinion that the account books did not show the correct extent of the business. The Tribunal also found that there was suppression of 400 quintals of rice till the month of May, 1982 that is for two months. In this situation, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding that the account books could not be relied upon and the same were rightly rejected by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee is that although the Tribunal has rejected the account books yet it was not correct in law in restoring the estimate of turnover as fixed by the Sales Tax Officer. The submission proceeds that the Tribunal has, in the impugned order, not stated any basis for confirming the estimate of turnover as made by the Sales Tax Officer. From a perusal of the impugned order, I, however, find that the Tribunal has, on this aspect of the matter, clearly stated in its order that there was a suppression of 400 qnintals of rice in the two months of April and May, 1982 and that the Sales Tax Tribunal has also considered the fact that the business was done for the entire year. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal does not disclose any basis by confirming the estimate made by the Sales Tax Officer. This submission, therefore, made by the learned counsel for the assessee, has got no force. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Petition dismissed. .;