A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, dated 22nd September, 1986.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 5th December, 1981, the business premises of the assessee was surveyed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward IV, Circle B, Udaipur, and goods taxable at the rate of 10 per cent worth Rs. 7,899 were found unaccounted on physical verification of the stock. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and the assessee was directed to appear before him on 8th December, 1981. THE assessee moved an application on 5th December, 1981, and requested the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer that as he is unable to appear on 8th December, 1981, his case may be disposed of today itself. THE statement of the assessee was recorded which has been placed on the record as annexure B. THE assessee admitted that goods worth Rs. 7,899 were not accounted for in his books and tax at the rate of 10 per cent had not been paid on that goods. On the basis of the admission of the assessee, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer passed an order under section 22 (6) (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and levied a penalty at 20 per cent to the tune of Rs. 1,579. 80. Aggrieved against this order, the assessee went in appeal and the appellate authority set aside the order on the ground that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity, i. e. , 15 days' notice and the amount of penalty was recovered by the departmental representative instead of being deposited in the treasury. Aggrieved against this order, the department preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, which came to be disposed of on 22nd September, 1986. THE learned Member, Tribunal overruled both the objections of the appellate authority that no sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee and the amount was accepted by the officer instead of being deposited in the State treasury. However, the learned Member, Tribunal observed that the assessing authority should have quantified the goods found excess in the pro forma given by him in the order itself. Since the goods were not quantified in the pro forma given by the assessing authority on that account, the learned Member dismissed the appeal of the State. Hence, this revision petition before this Court. The assessee has not appeared before this Court despite service of notice. In view of the fact that the assessee has admitted that unaccounted goods to the tune of Rs. 7,899 were lying in the stock of the assessee and he has not paid the tax, there remains nothing to be decided by the assessing authority. The assessee admitted in his statement, annexure B, on the record on oath that the tax was not paid by him. In view of the categorical admission there was no difficulty for the assessing authority to have levied the penalty as aforesaid. In view of the categorical admission by the assessee, there was no occasion to interfere with the order of assessment either by the appellate authority or by the Tribunal. In the result, I allow the revision petition, set aside the order dated 22nd September, 1986, passed by the Tribunal and the order dated 22nd November, 1984, passed by the appellate authority. Petition allowed. .;