- (1.) THIS is a revision preferred under sec. 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, by the assessee whose prayer for granting certain deductions has been partially rejected by the learned Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur City, Circle B, on 3. 1. 60, the appeal against which having been also disallowed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) Jaipur on 3. 1. 61. The assessee originally, during the course of the periodical returns submitted by him gave his gross turn-over to Rs. 76,970. 37 N. P. and claimed a deduction of Rs. 24,460. 41 N. P. therefrom. He, however, later on revised this figure to Rs. 78,033. 37 N. P. and Rs. 25,523. 43 N. P. respectively. The learned Sales Tax Officer disallowed the deductions on the plea that the assessee had neither maintained a register of raw materials nor of finished goods, and that, therefore, it was impossible to arrive at the correct figure of the opening stocks of purchases and sales. Further, it was observed that "he had tried to sort out the sale of brass sheets and circles but in the absence of a separate account for purchases and sales of sheets and circles which was used in manufacturing, no correct idea of sale thereof can be made. " The learned S. T. O. , therefore, proceeded to assess the assessee under sec. 10 (4) of the Act to the "best of his judgment. " He fixed in accordance with his "best judgment" the taxable turn-over as Rs. 60,000/- allowing a deduction only of Rs. 18,033. 37 N. P. In appeal the learned Deputy Commissioner before whom the appeal was pressed very vehemently, regarding the allowing of the deductions of full amount of Rs. 25,623/3/7 as well as questioning the making of the "best judgment assessment", did not take into consideration all the amounts of deductions claimed by the applicant-assessee. Rather he considered only Rs. 17,836. 34 N. P. claimed as deductions on account of goods exported out of Rajasthan and this too he brushed aside with a scanty observation that "in the absence of separate accounts, the assessing authority has allowed to him total deductions of a sum of Rs. 18,833. 37 N. P. THIS sum includes the price of those goods which he exported out of Rajasthan, and hence it is not correct to say that the exported goods have been doubly taxed. "
(2.) IT would be quite clear from the perusal of the record that the applicant assessee had claimed deductions ou!t of the amount of his gross turn-over under the following heads: - (a) the price of the goods exported Rs. 17,565/14/9. (b) the price of the tax-borne goods Rs. 6424/3/6. and (c) the price of the goods for which an exemption certificate had been obtained Rs. 133 3/4/9. We do not anywhere find in the judgment either of the Sales Tax officer or of the learned Deputy Commissioner that they had considered all these three amounts separately in accordance with the provisions of law in that behalf. Rather, the judgments are very silent about them. The only discussion made by them is what has been reproduced verbatim in the preceding paragraphs. Vide provisions of secs. 4 and 5 of the Act, the turn-over on account of the sales of goods outside the State as well as for which the exemption certificate had been obtained deserved to be deducted for purposes of the levying of the sales tax under sec. 10 thereof. So also, if a tax had already been paid on certain goods by another dealer and they were not taxable at multi points, but only at a single point, the assessee applicant had a rightful claim to have their price deducted from his total taxable turn-over. Sec. 10 (4) of the Act authorises the assessing authority to assess the dealer "to the best of his judgment" if the conditions laid down therein have been fulfilled. The conditions are that the assessee dealer has failed to furnish returns or fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued vide sub-sec. (2) or has not regularly employed any method of accounting or if the method employed is such that in the opinion of the assessing authority assessment can not properly be made on the basis thereof. The learned Deputy Commissioner has not at all stated as to what breach has been made by the assessee. The learned Sales Tax Officer has blamed the assessee only for not keeping the stock registers. Failure to keep such registers is entirely different from regularly employing any method of accounting or employing any faulty method. The learned Sales Tax Officer has himself admitted that the assessee had sorted out the sales under different hands. The learned Sales Tax Officer has rejected it only with the observation that in the absence of separate accounts of purchase and sale no correct idea could be made. All those observations might be true. But still the assessment had to be made, even when it was a "best judgment" assessment, on certain principles. It cannot be done in an absolutely arbitrary manner. Even though certain element of arbitrariness is unavoidable, under such circumstance they must appear to have been exercised in a judgment while doing so if not in its entirety upon some reasons at least "best". "judgment" qualified by the term "best" can only mean judgment that could be "best" exercised under the peculiar circumstances of the case. It cannot mean that the assessment can be done without any exercise of judgment whatsoever. Rather it should be a "judgment" that can be best possible in the absence of full material or evidence on the record. It cannot, however, mean that even the material or evidence on the record can be ignored and the assessing authority can fix any sum it likes by way of assessment. This point has been dealt with by the Board in case No. 4 (Udaipur) of 1951 (Sales Tax), Bhagchand Khemchand Vs. Sales Tax Deptt. to which one of us was a party, and it has been laid down there that whatever evidence or material is on the record must be taken into consideration while forming a "judgment" even under sec. 10 (4) of the Act by an assessing authority "to he best of his judgment. " In this particular case, the applicant assessee has submitted his accounts in whatever form they had been kept and had also made an attempt, as acknowledged by the learned assessing authority also, to sort out the sales and purchases separately. These should have been checked with the account books and a definite finding given whether they were wrong or right. In case the accounts were found to be false and nots up-potting the returns given by him, the applicant assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy and it should have been only then that any order of assessment on the basis of "best judgment " should have been made. Besides, as has been stated in the very beginning above, a separate finding should have been given on all the three different types of deduction claimed by the applicant. As we find that the assessment in the present case has been made not in accordance with the provisions of the above referred law, the revision cannot but be accepted. The assessment cannot be made arbitrarily and the claims of deductions disallowed in the same manner only because the applicant has failed to maintain account as required by Rule 42 of the Rule made under the Act. as has been very vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the opposite party. The failure may be made a cause of any other action. But the assessment has got to be made in accordance with the principles laid down by the Act as enunciated above. .;