Monthly tax returns do not bar scrutiny of books where returns appear incorrect or incomplete, and the notice was lawful.

The dealer's choice to file monthly returns under Rule 21 did not prevent the assessing authority from invoking Rule 18(5) to call for books of account where the returns appeared incorrect or incomplete. Rule 21(13) permits final assessment on the basis of returns only after scrutiny and enquiry satisfy the authority that the returns are correct and complete, and its proviso preserves the power to proceed under Rule 18 and determine turnover to the best of judgment. The notice calling for books of account was therefore within jurisdiction, and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority had jurisdiction to call for the dealer's books of account and reject the preliminary objection, notwithstanding the dealer's choice to file monthly returns under Rule 21.

Analysis: Rule 18(5) authorises the assessing authority to call for production of books of account where a return is not submitted or where the return appears incorrect or incomplete. Rule 21(13) contemplates final assessment on the basis of returns only where, after scrutiny and enquiry, the assessing authority is satisfied that the returns are correct and complete. The proviso to Rule 21(13) preserves the authority's power to follow the procedure in Rule 18 and determine turnover to the best of its judgment when the returns appear incorrect or incomplete. The fact that the dealer opted for monthly returns does not exclude scrutiny of the books or the statutory power to require their production.

Conclusion: The assessing authority was competent to issue the notice calling for books of account, and the challenge to the notice and connected orders failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The option to file returns under Rule 21 does not bar the assessing authority from invoking Rule 18(5) and requiring production of books of account where the returns appear incorrect or incomplete.

---