JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J.
1. The assessee in these two cases is a partnership-firm doing sarrafa business in the city of Agra in the name and style Messrs. Nemi Chand Vimal Chand, Agra.
2. At the time of regular assessment for the years 1064-65 and 1965-66 the Sales Tax Officer found that the assessee's books have been properly maintained. Accordingly after making some minor adjustments he assessed the firm on the basis of the turnover disclosed in its returns. The Commissioner of Sales Tax took the matter up in revision before the Judge (Revisions) and prayed that the case be sent back to the Sales Tax Officer for making fresh assessment as the turnover determined by him was inadequate. According to him, the Sales Tax Officer should have taken into consideration the past record of the firm as also its stock position and the investment made by it, before determining its taxable turnover for the years in question. The Judge (Revisions) found that the past record of the assessee may not be wholly relevant, but there were two other factors, viz., the stock position and the investment position, which the Sales Tax Officer should have taken into consideration before determining the assessee's turnover. Normally, turnover of business is about four times the stock unless there are special reasons to show that it did not reach that figure. No such reason had been given by the Sales Tax Officer. In fact he did not consider this aspect of the case at all. In the circumstances, he set aside the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer and remanded the case to him for making fresh assessment. The assessee then moved this court and obtained an order directing the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, to state the case and refer the following question of law in respect of each of the two assessment years for the opinion of this court-:
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the grounds mentioned by the Judge (Revisions) in the revisional order pertaining to the two assessment years in question, he was justified in law in setting aside the assessment orders and remanding the cases to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment.
3. So long as the finding that the assessee's books of account were reliable stood, the Sales Tax Officer had no option but to make an assessment on the basis of returns submitted by the assessee which were supported by its account books. If the assessee's books were reliable no question of estimating its turnover from its stock position at a particular time or on the basis of its investment in business could, in our opinion, arise for consideration. That question arises only when the assessee's books are rejected as unreliable. As in this case as the veracity of the assessee's accounts has not been doubted, it was not open to the Judge (Revisions) to remand the case to the Sales Tax Officer for the purposes of estimating the assessee's turnover on the basis of its stock position or the investments made in its business.
4. It is true that in the instant case the Sales Tax Officer made certain adverse remarks in respect of accounts for the year 1965-66, but a reading of the assessment order clearly indicates that on the whole he was satisfied that they were reliable and correct. The revisional order does not show that while remanding these cases, the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, has taken a different view about the assessee's books.
5. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case the Judge (Revisions) was not justified in setting aside the assessment orders and in remanding these cases to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment.
6. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to receive costs of this reference from the Commissioner of Sales Tax which we assess at Rs. 100 in each of these two references.