Account books cannot be rejected on mere low turnover; remand to find fresh grounds was held unsustainable.

An appellate or revisional authority cannot remand a sales tax assessment merely to allow the assessing authority to for fresh grounds to reject account books when the existing basis is legally unsustainable. Rejection of books cannot rest only on an allegedly low turnover compared with stock; it requires positive and concrete material showing understatement. Since the original rejection was unsupported by such material, the remand to seek new grounds was also unsustainable, and the position was found in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand order directing the appellate authority to send the matter back for fresh enquiry was justified.

Analysis: The books of account had been rejected by the assessing authority primarily on the ground that the declared turnover was disproportionately small compared with the stock held. The court noted that mere inadequacy of turnover, without positive and concrete material showing understatement, could not sustain rejection of the books. If the original grounds for rejection were unsustainable, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to remand the matter to the assessing authority to search for new grounds for rejecting the books. The further remand by the revisional authority to issue more intelligible directions was therefore equally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The remand order was not justified and the answer was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate or revisional authority cannot remand a sales tax assessment merely to enable the assessing authority to for fresh grounds to reject account books when the existing grounds of rejection are legally unsustainable; rejection must rest on positive material and not on mere inadequacy of turnover.

---