J. S. VERMA. C. J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against the order dated September 30, 1986, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal dismissing the department's appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by which the order of the original assessing authority was set aside. The limited question for decision in this revision is whether there is any ground for interference within the scope of revision. Having heard the learned counsel, I am satisfied that there is no ground to interfere in this revision.
(2.) THE assessee's tax was assessed by the assessing authority to the best of his judgment made by him and several reasons were given by the assessing authority for taking this action. However, the assessee's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) succeeded and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the reasons which weighed with the assessing authority came to the conclusion that there was no reasonable basis for resorting to this mode of assessment. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the assessing authority's conclusion that in respect of the tax liability found due tax was payable at the rate of 12 per cent instead of 10 per cent and, therefore, the assessee was liable to pay the difference at the rate of 2 per cent. THE Tribunal thereafter in further appeal made by the department came to the conclusion that there was no defect in the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepting the explanations given by the assessee which had been rejected by the assessing authority. Learned counsel for the department first contended that mere non-maintenance of the stock register is sufficient to justify rejection of the account books and to make a best judgment assessment. Reference was made by the learned counsel to section 5c and section 21 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, along with rule 42 of the rules framed thereunder to contend that mere non-maintenance of the stock register results in this consequence. It was argued that in the absence of a stock register it was not possible to verify that entire raw material purchased by the assessee had in fact been utilised in manufacture of the goods by the assessee. In my opinion, such a broad proposition is not warranted from the combined reading of the statutory provisions relied on by the learned counsel for the department. It is no doubt true that maintenance of stock register which could show the quantity of raw material purchased by the assessee and the manner in which it was utilised in manufacture of the goods by him is not only required by this provision but also desirable for obvious reasons. The question, however, is whether the non-maintenance of a stock register is by itself sufficient to reject the account books and make a best judgment assessment. In my opinion, such a wide proposition is not reasonable to accept. The reason is obvious. The provisions require maintenance of account books in a manner which would indicate the quantity of the raw material purchased and its quantity utilised in manufacture of the goods by the assessee and the manner in which the utilisation was made when the raw material has been purchased indicating that the same was purchase for manufacture of specified goods. This, however, does not mean that such a fact can be known or verified only from a stock register and not by other account books maintained by the assessee. It is a question of fact in each case whether the account books maintained by the assessee satisfy this requirement or not. In a case where no stock register has been maintained by the assessee, the compliance of this requirement may be made even from the account books which have been maintained. It is, therefore, this question which has to be considered in every case where this point arises. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the conclusion that every aspect which requires explanation by the assessee has been explained by the assessee by giving an explanation which is plausible, and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has in fact accepted the assessee's explanation. It is also not a case where original assessing authority has been able to find anything which in fact existed or happened and which was inconsistent with the manner in which the transactions were shown in the assessee's account books. In such a situation, it cannot be said, particularly in view of the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that non-maintenance of the stock register by the assessee by itself justified rejection of the account books and making a best judgment assessment. Learned counsel for the department referred to certain decisions which are distinguishable on facts. The present is a case where the Tribunal has refused to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the final departmental authority and the question, therefore, is whether any interference with finding of fact would be justified an further revision by this Court. The cases cited are those in which the Tribunal has disturbed the finding of fact in revision and reversed the finding recorded by the final departmental authority. Learned counsel then contended that production of the stock register is necessary at least to provide corroborative material even if its non-maintenance by itself is not a fatal defect. This aspect is covered by the earlier discussion. Admittedly, corroborative material is required only to strengthen the probative value of the substantive material which has been produced. The finding of fact in this case is in favour of the assessee even without that corroborative material. It is not a case where the stock register though maintained was withheld from the departmental authority so as to justify adverse inference being drawn. This point does not require any further consideration.
(3.) THE last contention of the learned counsel for the department is that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal wrongly placed the burden on the department by requiring the department to prove that the account books were wrong. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as a whole does not give such an impression. THE Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has merely referred to certain circumstances indicating inaction of the departmental authorities to do that which could ordinarily be done for taking the view that the explanation given by the assessee is plausible and, therefore, acceptable. This does not amount to placing any extra burden on the department to do something which it was not required to do. It follows that on the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee's explanation is plausible, the ultimate view taken by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) does not call for any interference in this further revision after refusal of interference by the Tribunal. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. .;