Revision confined to questions of law; non-production of accounts at survey can justify rejection of books unless satisfactorily explained.

Revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is confined to questions of law, so the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb factual findings on rejection of books of account. Non-production of accounts at the time of survey is a material circumstance in assessing whether the return is correct and the books were maintained in the regular course of business. Later production during assessment does not erase the earlier failure, and the assessee must give a plausible explanation to avoid adverse inference. The High Court's interference was therefore unwarranted, and rejection of the books was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in revision under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the High Court could interfere with the Tribunal's findings on rejection of books of account, and whether non-production of accounts at the time of survey could justify rejection of the books even though they were produced during assessment.

Analysis: Revision under section 11 is confined to questions of law, and the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb factual findings as if hearing a first appeal. The Act requires dealers to maintain true and correct accounts and empowers inspection and production of books at business premises. Non-production of accounts during survey is not inconsequential; it is a relevant circumstance when the assessing authority considers whether the return is correct or incomplete and whether the books were maintained in the regular course of business. Production of the books later at assessment does not erase the earlier non-production. The assessee must offer a plausible explanation for the failure to produce them at survey, and the burden lies on the assessee to explain why no adverse inference should follow.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted, and rejection of the books of account on the facts was justified. The decision is in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the High Court may interfere only on a question of law, and non-production of accounts at survey is a material circumstance that can support rejection of books even if they are later produced at assessment, unless satisfactorily explained.

---