V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE assessing authority has filed this revision under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated August 31, 1989, wherein the following two questions have been raised : (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in setting aside the levy of penalty ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the facts are admitted any further reasonable opportunity should have been allowed to the assessee ? Brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the business premises of the assessee were inspected on May 8, 1981 and it was found that 25 bodies of the coolers were in the stock of the assessee, for which notice was issued at the spot fixing the date of hearing as May 20, 1981. THE statement of Kishori Shyam was also recorded, in which he has stated that purchase vouchers are not available with him and the entries in the books have not been made since the purchase vouchers from Delhi have not been received. THE said goods were received for sale. THE assessing authority levied penalty on that very day, of Rs. 3,000 under section 22 (6) (b) of the Act on the basis of the application submitted by the assessee that instead of May 20, 1981, the matter may be decided on that very day itself.
(2.) THE matter was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Deputy Commissioner has held that reasonable opportunity was not giver, to the assessee and the entire proceedings were concluded in one day and that the entire stock should have been physically verified in order to come to a conclusion that a particular item is in excess or not and this has to be verified from the books of accounts. THE appellate authority found that the books of accounts were not checked nor the balance of the stock as available on the day of inspection was arrived at in any manner so that it could be said that the particular stock is in excess when recorded in the books of accounts. In the appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, the Tribunal has held that there is no specific finding that only these 25 cooler bodies were found at the business premises of the assessee on the day the inspection was carried on and that no verification from the books of accounts was done and the order was upheld. The submission of Mr. Bafna is that there is an admission on the part of the assessee that the bills of those 25 cooler bodies have not been received from Delhi and the assessee was ready to pay penalty and, therefore, neither any further proceeding/enquiry was contemplated nor it was necessary that the books of accounts should have been examined. The submission of Mr. Mehta is that the alleged statement is inadmissible since the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer has not administered oath or have written "read over and accepted" over his signatures and as such the said statement is inadmissible. I have considered over the matter. Though this Court has taken the view that once there is an admission, further enquiry will not be necessary, there may be an instance where admission has been made in ignorance of fact or law and then in such a case as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University (1976) 1 SCC 311; AIR 1976 SC 376, it will not be binding. In the present matter, the alleged admission cannot be considered to be an admission at all since even the basic requirement of law has not been complied with. In order to give a finding that the goods are not accounted for by the dealer in his accounts, the registers and other documents maintained in the course of his business or in any other satisfactory manner, a finding has to be given to this effect and this finding could be given only after examination of books of account or other documents or any other satisfactory manner. Since no such finding was given for this basic requirement of the law nor the compliance thereof was made by examining the books of accounts, documents, etc. , the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the penalty. The order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. . ;