1980 (9) TMI 288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ks and as mentioned in the return ; secondly that the assessee had not issued any cash memo and lastly that the assessee did not maintain separate trading account of taxable and non-taxable goods. After rejecting the accounts the assessing officer estimated the net turnover at ₹ 1,70,000/-. 2. The assessee filed an appeal. The appellate authority confirmed the rejection of accounts but reduced that taxable turnover to ₹ 1,67,000/-. Not satisfied, the assessee took up the matter in revision. The Additional Judge (Revisions) accepted the assessee's contention in regard to the difference in the gross turnover as disclosed in the books and in the return. However because of the omission on the part of the assessee to issue cash .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned single Judge of this Court in Jamuna Das Nami Chand v. C.S.T., 1979 ATJ 144 : 1981 UPTC 96 in which omission to issue cash memos as required by : Section 8-A (3) as it existed earlier and has now been substituted by Section 8-A (4) is in itself held sufficient to justify rejection of accounts. It has been laid down in this case that in view of the phraseology of Section 8-A (3) it is not only that a dealer has to maintain his accounts as laid down in Section 12, but every registered dealer, who charges tax has to issue cash memos and credit memos as required by Section 8-A (3). It was further held that judicial notice of the fact that the assessee normally charge tax from every customers on sales effected by them can be taken. There is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contended on behalf of the assessee that even if the accounts were rejected, it was not necessary to make any enhancement in the disclosed turnover and since the assessee's turnover for the immediately preceding year was accepted by the Additional Judge (Revisions) though the accounts were rejected, for this year also the same view might be taken. After hearing counsel for parties I am not inclined to accept this submission either because in the first instance the Additional Judge (Revisions) has sustained the quantum of taxable turnover determined by the appellate authority keeping in view the assessee's previous history. Apart from that the net turnover disclosed by the assessee was not on the basis of the books but it was based .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X