Holding

A kutcha arhatiya is deemed a dealer under s.2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, making the assessee liable to tax, and the High Court erred in addressing the best‑judgment assessment issue and overturning the revisional order.

Summary

The Commissioner of Sales Tax appealed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had held that the assessee, Bishamber Singh Layaq Ram, was not a dealer under section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and therefore not liable to purchase tax. The assessee, registered as a dealer, operated as a kutcha arhatiya, buying produce from cultivators and selling it to pucca arhatiyas or other buyers. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "dealer" and its explanatory clause, concluding that the clause expressly brings a kutcha arhatiya within the definition, making the assessee a dealer liable to tax. The Court also held that the High Court should not have entertained the question of best‑judgment assessment under s.7(3) nor set aside the revision judge’s order, as the issue was not raised before the revisional authority. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the revision judge’s order for a fresh best‑judgment assessment was restored.

Issues considered

Whether there is material in support of a best‑judgment assessment under s.7(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Whether the assessee, acting as a kutcha arhatiya, falls within the definition of "dealer" under s.2(c) of the Act, read with its explanation, and is therefore liable to purchase tax.
Whether the High Court could entertain a question of law not raised before the revisional judge and set aside the revisional findings.

Legislation cited

U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948s. 11(4), s. 2(c), s. 7(3), s. 8-A
U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1959

Subjects

Sales taxDealer definitionKutcha arhatiyaBest judgment assessmentU.P. Sales Tax ActReference under s.11(4)Commission agentMercantile agent

Judgment

548

A

THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.
+
v.
BISHAMBER SINGH LAYAQ RAM
B
August 26, 1980
(P. N. BlIAGWATI, A. P. SEN & E. S. VENKATARAMIAH]

U.P. Sales Tax Ac! 1948, ss. 2(c) Expln., 7(3) and 11(4)-Kutcha arhatiya
whether a deale1-Ques1ion of law neither raised before the appellate nor revi-
c sional authority-High Court in reference-Whether entitled to· go ifllo the
question.

Words & Pltrases-'arhatiya'-'pucca arhatiya'-'kutcha arhatiya'-Meaning
of-s. 2(2) Expln. U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Section 2(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 defines "dealer" to mean any
D person or association of persons carrying on the business of buying or selling
goods in Uttar Pradesh whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise. By
the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1949 an Explanation was inserted in this
section to provide that a factor, a broker, a commission agent or arhatiyo., a
de/ credere agent, an auctioneer, or any other mercantile agent by whatever
name called, and whether of the same description as hereinbefore mentioned
or not, who carries on the business of buying or selling goods on behalf of his
E principles, or through whom the goods are sold or purchased sh.ill be deemed
to be a dealer for !he purposes of the Act.

The respondent (assessee) who was registered as a dealer under section SA
was carrying on business in jaggery, amchur, khandsari etc. on its own account
and as kutcha arhatiya. The nature of the b~siness carried on by the assessee
F was that cultivators brought their produce to the assessee for sale. The goods
were weighed at his shop and then supplied to the pucca arhatiyas or to other
persons. Price of the commodity in ful! or part was paid by the assessee.
to the cultivators directly, and the price from the purchaser were realised after·
wards. During the asse;;sment year 1967-68 the Sales Tax Officer by his assess-
ment order rejected the account books of the assessee on the basis of some
discrepancy found durir.g the four surveys carried out at the shop and made
G a best judgment assessment under sub-section (3) of s~ction 7 of the Act, deter-
mining the taxable turnover of purchases effected by the assessee as a kutcha
arhafiya at Rs. 5.3 lacs and taxed it. On appeal the Assistant Commissioner
(Judicial), Sales Tax reduced the taxable turnover of purchase by Rs. 1.5 lacs.
.. ".
Cross-revisions by the appellant as well as by the respondent were allowed
by the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax who by his order negalived the
plea of the assessee that he was not a dealer but held from the material on
record that the iaxable turnover of the assessee could not reasonably be deter-
mined at Rs. 3.8 lacs. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial)
and Sales Tax Officer were set aside and a fresh best judgment assessment
was directed to be made.
i ' :;~:.. ',.
CST V. :BISHAMBHER SINGH 549

The High Court .~P~n reference, as to the liability of the '.lssessee to tax
..
A
-On th~ .transactions .effested .1'y· it as kutclza arhatiya held, that tl:e assessee c'YlJ.S
not a dealer. It further. held .t~at .a person can be liable to tax as a eeale~
+ .only if he acts as an agent having the authority to pass title in the goo.ds sold,
and that a kutcha ariw,tiy~ mereiy brought together the seller and the purchaser
and helped in settling the price and weighment of the goods etc.
In the appeal to tnis .C.ourt it was contended, on. behalf of. the appellant, >·
,[

>that the High Court was wrong in holding that the assessee was not a dealer B
within section 2(c) of the Act and that the High Court had completely over-
looked ,the ..Explanation to ,section 2(c) which was inse.rted by .t.he U..P . . Sales
·Tax (Amendment) Act, 1959 particularly the words "through whom the g.oods
'-....are sold or purchased", and that the Sales Tax Officer was not justified ia
•making an assessment to the best of his judgment under section 7(3).
'·
Allowing the appeal
,>.- HELD: l(i) The finding arrived at by the High Court that the assessee
as a _.kutcha arhatiya me\ely. broµght together the seller and the buyer charging
·an additional sum by way of commissicin and,_ therefore, coul.d not be.regarded
•as a dealer i.e. a person engaged in the business .of buying and selling goods,
~s contrary to the admitted facts of the case. [551 HJ
" "' , . • • • • ~ I [

(ii) Explanation to s. 2(c) brought within the definition of 'dealer' not only l
·a commission agent, a factor, a del credere agent or any other mercantile agent D
by .,whatever name, called, and whether of such de.scription or not, but also a
'broker, an auctioneer as well as an arhatiya. [554 DJ .,
(iii) The definition of 'dealer' in section 2(c) is wide enough to include
a selling or purchasing agent of whatever name or description. The term
·•arhatiya' is wide enough to include kutcha arizatiya. [554 E]
.(iv) The basic distinction. between a kutcha and a pucca arltatiya is that a
k.utdza arhatiya acts as an agent on behalf of his constituent and never acts
;as. a ,principal to him. , A. pucca arht;ttiya acts as a. principal. as., regards his
·Constituent and not as disinterested middleman who brings principals together,
·there being no privily of contract between the constituent and the ihird party. •
On ,the othe.r hand a kutcha arhatiya usually denotes ..a person who merely
·'brings together the buyer and seller' charging his commission, who has no ,.
·dominion or control over the goods unlike a pucca arhatiya who deals as a
principal . in relation to both his constituent and to the third party. In a
F
commercial sense, a kutcha arhatiya acts as an agent on behalf of his constituent.
'[552 G-553 B, F]
Bhagwandas Pilrasram v. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji, LR (1917-18) 45 IA 29,
Shivnarayan Kabra v. State of Madras. [1967] 1 SCR 138, Sobhagmal Gianmal
v. M11k11ndcha11d Balia, L.R. (1926) 53 I.A. 241, Chowringhee Sales Bureau G"
·(P) Ltd. v. C.l.T .. West Bengal, .[1973] 2 SCR 618, referred to.
. 2(i) The High Court should have declined to go into the question of the.
applicability oL s. 7(3) of the Act. When a question of law was neither raised
before the Addi. Judge (Revisions) nor considered by him nor did it arise on
findings given by him, it will not be a question arising out of his order. [556 F]
(ii) The question as to whether the Sales Tax Officer was justified in making
i"'
a best judgment assessment under section 7(3) of the Act was not referred H
1o the High Court. . It was,. therefore, not open to the High Court. to go into
·the question. It could not allow the new point to be raised for the first !im~
<in reference. [556 G]
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

(iii) The High Court was also not entitled on a reference under section 11(4)
of the Act to set aside the findings of the Addi. Judge (Revisions) merely
because on a reappraisal of the evidence it would have come to a contrary
conclusion. It was also not entitled to examine whether the explanation of
the assessee in regard to the deficiencies found in the account books should
+
or should not be ac,:epted. [556 HJ

B CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 717 of 1973.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgement and Order dated ~
27-10c1972 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Ref. No. 857 /71.
S. Markandeya, for the Appellants. /
0. P. Verma, for the Respondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN J.-This is an appeal from a judgment of the Allahabad
High Court dated October 27, 1972 which was given upon a
reference of certain questions of law made to the High Court by the
D Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Meerut in compliance with
its directions under sub-s. (4) of s. l I of the U.P. Sales Tax Act,
1948 calling for a statement of the case. The two questions referred
were as follows :
1. Whether there is no material in support of best judgment
assessment ?
E 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this. case
the asseS!iCe acted in respect of the estimated purchase )'-
turnover of Rs. 3.80.000 as a dealer so as to be liable to
purchase tax ?
The Commissioner of Sales Tax submitted that the nrst question
F should be answered in the negative and the second in the affirmative.
The High Court decided in favour of the assessee and against the
Commissioner', holding that the submission of the assessee was right
and answered both the questions to the contrary. From this decision
the appellant, the Commissioner of Sales Tax, has appealed.

G The reference arose 'out of assessment for the assessment year
1967-68 of Messrs Bishamqer Singh Layaq Ram which carries on
. business in jaggery, amchur, khandsari etc. on its own account and
as kuccha arhatiya in jaggery, foodgrains etc. at Shahpur in the
district of Muzaffarnagar, and is registered as a dealer under s. 8-A
of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the asses see').
H
The material facts may be stated as follows : During the
assessment year in question, the Sales Tax Officer, Muzaffarnagar by
.his order dated December 27, 1968 rejected the account books of the
CST v. BISHAMBHER SINGH (Sen, J.) 551

assessee on the, basis of some discrepancies found during the four A
surveys carried out at his shop and made a best judgment assessment
.u~er sub-s. (3) of s. 7 of the Act, determining the taxable turnover
+ of purchases ~ffected by it as a kutcha arhatiya at Rs. 5,30,000 and
the tax payable thereon at Rs. 25,450. On appeal the Assistant
Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Muzaffarnagar by his order daled
August 11, 1969 reduced the taxable turnover of purchases by B
Rs. 1.50,000 and the tax by Rs. 7,500.

There were two cross-revisions by the Commissioner of Sales
Tax and by the assessee, both of which were allowed by the
Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Meerut who by his order
dated February 10, 1970 while negativing the plea of the assessee c
that he was not a dealer, however, felt that on the material on record,
the taxable turnover of the assessee could not reasonably be
determined at Rs. 3,80,000. He accordingly set aside the orders of
the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and of the Sales Tax Officer
and directed that there should be a fresh best judgment assessment. I>
Upon reference, the High Court on question No. 2, as to ~he
,liability of the assessee to tax on transactions effected by it as kutcha
·· arhatiya held that the assessee was not a dealer, observing :
"If the assessee is a Kutcha Arhatiya then he is not liable
to sales tax. The change in the definition of the word 'dealer' E
in 1961 upon which the Judge (Revisions) has relied does not
change the situation. A person can be liable to tax as a dealer
only if he acts as an agent having the authority to pass title in
the goods sold. A kutcha arhatiya merely brings together the
seller and the purchaser and helps in settling the price and
weighing the goods etc. The fact that he sometimes advances F
money to cultivators who bring their produce for sale or some·
times pays the entire sale price to the cultivator from his own
pocket is not inconsistent with his being a kutcha arhatiya."

It was rightly contended on behalf of the Commissioner that
the High Court was wrong in holding that the assessee was not G
a dealer within s. 2(c) of •the Act and that the Sales Tax Officer.
was not justified in making an assessment to the best of his judgment
under s. 7(3). It is pointed out that the High Court has completely
overlooked Explanation to s. 2(c) of the Act which was inserted by
the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1959, particularly the words
'through whom the goods are sold or purchased' appearing therein. H
with regard to the applicability of s. 7(3), it is urged that the question
was not referred.
..
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 1 S.C.R.
A The finding arrived at by the High Court that the assessee as
a _kutcha arhatiya merely brought together the seller and the buyer
charging an additional sum by way of commission and, therefore,
could not be regarded as a dealer, i.e., a person engaged in the
business of buying and selling goods, is co"ntrary to the admitted
fa~ts of the case. The facts stated in the agreed statement of the
case clearly show that the assessee is not a kutcha arhgtliya, in the
usual sense of the term, but his business brings into existence the
:rdation of vendor and purchaser. The nature of the business
carried on by the assessee is described thus :
"Cultivators bring: their produce ito the assessee for sale.
' The goods are weighed at his shop and then supplied to the
pucca arhatiyas or to other persons. Price of the commodity
in full or part is paid by the assessee to the cultivators directly.
The price from the pu11chasers is realised afterwards. In any
case it is not lhe responsibility of the cultivators to realise the
price from 1the purchasers. On the contrary, it is the assessee
who is responsible foi< the payment of 1he price to the cultivators.
Some times the cultivators are also paid advances and these are
adjusted when the price of the produce is paid to the cultivators."
(Emphasis supplied)
The decision on the question whether the assessee is a dealer
must tum on the construction of s. 2(c), which insofar as material,
reads :
"2(c) "dealer" means any person or association of persons
carrying on the business of buying or selling goods in Uttar
Pradesh, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise,
Explanation : A factor, a broker, a commission agent or
arhati, a de! credere agent, an auctioneer, or any other mercantile
agent by whatever name called, and whether of the same
description as hereinbefore mentioned or not, who carries. on
th'e business of buying or selling goods on behalf of his principals,
or through whom tlie goods are sold or purchased shall be
deemed to be a dealer for the purposes of this Act."
·G There can. be no doubt that a pucca arhatiya comes within the
·substantive part of the definition of 'dealer' contained in s. 2(c) of
the Act, but the question still remains whether a kutcha arhatiya is
covered by the definition, by reason of the Explanation thereto.
The basic distinction between a kutcha and a pucca arha:tiya is
H that a kuitcha arhatiya acts as an agent on behalf of his constituent and
never acts as a principal to him. The person with whom he enters
into a transaction on behalf of his constituent is either brought into
contact with the constituent or at least the constituent is informed of
CST v. BISHAMBHER SINGH .(Sen, J.) 553
:pt_, . ..{ ~--\~~>

the fact that the transaction has been entered into on his behalf with a
pllrti~ular person. Bui"in· the case of a piii::ca arhatiya, 'ihe agent :inakes
himself liable upon the contraot not only to third parties but. also to
b'!s constituent. ' :He does not inform' his constituent as to the third
party with whom he has entered into a contract on his behalf.
Thus, a pucca arhatiya acts as a principal as regards his
constituent and 'not as a disinterested middle'rriall who brings about
two principals together, there being no privity of contract 'between
the constituent and the third party, arid may substitute his own goods
towards the contract made forthe principal and buy the principal's
goods on his personal account. On the' other hand a kutcha arhatiya
usually denotes a person who merely 'brings together the buyer and
the ·seller' charging his commiss.ion, who has no dominion or control
c
over the goods, unlike a pucca arhatiya who deals as a principal in
relation to both his constituent and .to the third party.
The crucial test is whether the agent has any personal interest of
his own when he enters into the transaction or whether that interest
is limited to his commission agency charges and certain out of pocket D
expenses, and in the event of any Joss his right to ·be indemnified by
the principal. This principle was applied in the case of pakki arhat
by Sir Lawrence Jenkins C.J. in l3hagwanda:s Narot'amdas v. Kan;i
Deaji(I) and approved of by the Judicial Committee in Bhagwandas
Partisram v. Burjorji Ruttanji Bamanji(2) and by this Court in
Shiv11arayau Kabra v. State of Madras.( 3) As to the incidents of pakki E
arhat, Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhagwandas Narol!amdas's case sue·
cinctly states the legal position; in his own terse language : '
"A pakka adatia is not, in the proper sense of the word, aII
agent or even a del credere agent. The -relation between him and
his up-country constituent is substantially one of principal and F
principal."
In a commercial sense, a kutcha arhatiya acts as an agent on
behalf of his constituent. The main characteristic of a kutcha' arhatiya
has been described by the Judicial Committee in Sobhagmal Gianmal
v. Mukundchand Balia( 4) in these terms :
"When a katcha adatia enters into transactions under instruc· G
'·~ tions from and on behalf of his up-country constituent with
a third party in Bombay, he, makes privity of contract between
the third party and the constituent, so that each becomes liable
(l) ILR 30 Born. 205.
(2) LR (1917-18) 45 IA 29.
(3) [1967] 1 SCR 138.
(4) L.R. (1926) 53 I.A. 241.

., ""'
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

A to the other, but also he renders himself responsible on the
contract to the third party."
Vivian Bose J. in Kalyanji Kuwarji v. Tirkaram Sheolal(I) puts +
the matter thus: ·
"The test to my mind is ·this : does the commission agent
when he sells have authority to sell in his own name ? Has he
B authority in his own right to pass a valid title ? If he has then
he is acting as a principal vis-a-vis the purchasers and not merely
as an agent and therefore from that point or he is a debtor of his
erstwhile principal and not merely an agent. Whether this is so
or not must of course depend upon the facts in each particular
c case."
It is plain, on an examination of the language as it stood at the
material time, from the definition of 'dealer' in s. 2(c) that even" a
selling or purchasing agent is within that definition. A person to be
a 'dealer' under that definition must be engaged in the business of
buying and selling goods in Uttar Pradesh whether for commission,
D remuneration or otherwise. Explanation to s. 2(c) brought within the
definition of 'dealer' not only a commission agent, a factor, a del
credere agent or any other mercantile agent by whatever name called,
and whether of such description or not, but also a brokar, an
auctioneer as well as an arhatiya. The use of the words "through
whom the goods are sold or purchased" in the Explanation is significant,
E and they must be given their due meaning. Thus, the definition of
'dealer' in s. 2(c) is wide enough to include a selling or ·purchasing
agent of whatever name or description. The term 'arhatiya' is wide
enough to include a kutcha arhatiya.
·If the Explanation to s. 2(c) of the Act were not there, perhaps
it could be said that a kutcha arhatiya is merely an agent who helps
F
cultivators who bring their produce to the market for sale, to find
buyers, assist them in weighment and secure to them payment of price,
but the assessee here certaill1ly does not answer that description. That
apart, the Explanation clearly brings within the definition of 'dealer'
in s. 2(c) a kutcha arhatiya. It was not suggested at any time that
G the Explanation was ultra vires the State Legislature being beyond the
ambit of Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The consti-
tutional validity of a similar Explanation to, s. 2(1c) of the Bengal
Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 which brought an auctioneer within
the purview of the definition of 'dealer.' in that section, was upheld
by this Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. v. C.l.T., West
H Bengal.(2~ The whole object is to tax a transaction of sale in the

(1) A.l.R. (1938) Nag. 254.
(2) [1973] 2 SCR 618.
CST v. BISHAMBHER SINGH (Sen, J.)
555

hands of a person who carries on the business of selling goods and A
who has the legal or customary authority to sell goods belonging to
the principal.
It is evident from the statement of the case that the business
.carried on by the assessee was more or less similar to that of a pu.cca
.arhatiya and it is a misnomer to call it a kutcha arhmiya. . It
actually purchased the goods from the sellers, i.e., the· cultivators, B
and then sold them· in ·the market to the other buyers, as if they
were its own, obviously at a profit. It paid to the cultivators the
price of the goods it purchased and received from the buyers the price
at which is sold. Selling of goods was not simultaneous with receiv-
. · ing them. These facts can lead to no other conclusion except that it
1 bought and then sold goods and not merely brought buyers into c
,"'- contact with sellers and arranged transactions between them. In these
.circumstances, the High Court should have held the assessee to be
a dealer under s. 2(c) of the Act, read with the Explanation ;thereto.
There remains the question whether the High Court was justified
in holding that there was no basis for making a best judgment D
assessment. The Addi. Judge (Revisions) had remanded the case for
a reassessment on the basis of best judgment; on his finding that there
was no material whatever on record to enable him to come to a
·Conclusion one way or the other, on the disputed question of fact,
i.e., whether the best judgment assessment of the taxable turnover
at Rs. 3,80,000 could be sus.tained. E
Though the question of the applicability of s. 7(3) of the Act was
.not, in terms. referred to the High Count under s. 11(4), the Addi.
Judge (Revisions) in stating the case mentioned that the assessee had
·contended before him that · his account books had been wrongly
rejected.
F
The statement of 'the case sets out the details of the various
· surveys made and the nature of the deficiencies found. The High
Court treating the question referred to be a composite one, embarked
upon an enquiry as to whether the Sales Tax Authorities were
juistified in rejecting the account books and in making the best
judgment assessment# under s. 7(3). It has referred to the four surveys G
carried <;mt on August 11. 1967, December 13, 1967, January 7, 1968
and March 8, 1968. In the first survey held on August 11, 1967
it was found that the Nagal Bahi had not been written for eleven
days. The High Court observes that 'no adverse .inference could be
.drawn on this account because the assessee's explanation was that.
there were no cash transactions for this period, and, therefore, the ,ff
Nagai Bahi h:ad not been written'.. With regard to the second survey
carried out on December 13, 1967 it was discovered that there was
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981} 1 S.C.R.

A a loose parclur containing several entries. One of the entries of
Rs. 371.17 in the name of Sakh Chand Udit Mohan alone· was entered
in the account books. That foo on December 13, 1967 after inspection,
while the payment was actually made on December' 11, 1967, i.e.,
it was not contemporaneous' with the transactfotn. The High Court
+
observes that 'it has not been found that any other entry contained
B in the loose parcha had not been entered in the account books'. With
regard to the third survey carried out on January 7, 1968 when
twelve bags of wheat were found in stock, the stock register was not ~
shown to the surveying officer. The High Court has again accepted
the explanation of the assessee saying that 'there was no duty cast /
on the assessee to produce the stock register and it was not shown
c since there ·was no demand for it'. It observes that 'there is nothing.
inh s. 13d or in_ any. otJ;ier provisions of the Act or the rules framed ~,
t ereun er w1rn;h reqmres a dealer to produce his books of accounts /'
and other documents before the surveying officer'. As ·regards the
· last survey held on March 8, 1968 the Mondhi Bahi was found to be
pos'ed upto February 29, 1968. Thus there were no entries for eight
D
days. The exp ~anation af the assessee was that it had not entered
into any contract during the eight days in question. The High Court
observes that 'as there was no mater:a1 whatever for rejecting his
explanation, no adverse inference could be drawn with regard to the
veracity of the accoun:s, si111ce Mondhi Bahi is not a necessa~y account
E book'. We are not inclined to agree with this line of reasoning.
While we refrain from expressing any opinion on the requirements
of s. 13(2) of the Act, we are satisfied that the finding of the High
Court that the:·e was nothing wrong with the method of accounting
adopted by the assessee cannot be upheld.
In our opinion, the High Court should have declined to go into
F the question of the applicability of s. 7(3) of the Act. When a
question of law was neither raised before the Addi. Judr,e. (Revisions)
nor considered bv him nor did it arise on the findings given by him,
it will not be a question arising out of his 0rder.
The question as to whe!~her the Sales Tax Officer was justified
G in making a best judgment assessment under s. 7(3) of the Act was
not referred to the High Court. It was, therefore, not open to the
High Court to go into the question. It could not allow •he new point
to be raised for the first time in reference. Nor was the High Court
entitled on a reference under s. 11(4) of the Act to set aside the
finding of the Addl. Judge (Revisions) merely because on a reap·
II praisal of the evidence it would have come to a contrary conclusion .
. It was also' not entitled to examine whether the explanation of the
assessee in -regard to the deficiencies found in the account books
CST v. BJSIJAMBHER SINGH (Sen, !.) 557

should or should not be accepted. ,It may be that the Sales Tax A
Authorities should have a,.ccepted the explanation of the assessee with
regard to the aforesaid. deficiencies, but it may as well be that there
are various other defici~ncies which the assessee will have still to
-.+· explain.
For all these reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside B
and that of "the Addl. Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax Meerut remanding
the case for a fresh judgment assessment under s. 7(3) of the Act is
restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

N.V.K Appeal allow:ed.

15-647 S.C. India/SO