Procedural record-keeping rule upheld where it regulates proof without excluding other evidence, with assessment remitted for fresh consideration.

Rule 36 under the Bihar Sales Tax Act was treated as a valid procedural requirement for maintaining and producing records in support of a claim, because it regulated proof without excluding other relevant evidence. The assessing authority retained power to examine the dealer's register and determine the matter on merits, including by best judgment assessment where appropriate. At the same time, the authority was advised not to reject the evidence mechanically for non-compliance with the rule, particularly in a newly developing statutory scheme. The challenge to Rule 36 therefore failed, and the assessment was sent back for fresh examination of the evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 36 framed under Section 26 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act was ultra vires and whether the assessment should be reconsidered on the evidence produced by the dealer.

Analysis: Rule 36 was held not to be ultra vires. It was treated as a rule regulating the record to be maintained and produced in support of a claim, without excluding other evidence. The assessment authority could still examine the dealer's register and decide the matter on merits. The power to make a best judgment assessment under Section 10 of the Act was recognised, but the authority was advised to consider the evidence already produced rather than reject it mechanically for non-compliance with the rule, especially where the statutory scheme was still new.

Conclusion: The challenge to Rule 36 failed, but the matter was sent back for fresh examination of the evidence.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was not finally affirmed or set aside on merits, and the dispute was restored for reconsideration by the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural rule requiring maintenance and production of specified records is not invalid merely because it regulates proof of a claim, so long as it does not exclude other relevant evidence, and the assessment authority may still determine the matter on merits.

---