Concurrent findings of fact sustain rejection of books and best judgment turnover assessment in revision.

The rejection of the assessee's books of account was sustained on factual findings of discrepancies between returned turnover and the books, understatement of purchases and sales, and failure to maintain manufacturing accounts. Those findings had been affirmed through multiple assessment and appellate stages, and the best judgment assessment of turnover was therefore based on concurrent findings of fact. In revisional jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, no interference was warranted because the dispute raised no question of law. The books rejection and best judgment assessment were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the assessee's books of account and the consequent best judgment assessment of turnover called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The books of account had been rejected on factual grounds, including discrepancies between the returned turnover and the books, understatement of purchases and sales, and non-maintenance of manufacturing accounts. The matter had passed through three assessments and three appellate orders, and none of the authorities had accepted the books of account. The finding of rejection was, therefore, supported by concurrent factual findings of the assessing authority, the first appellate authority, and the Tribunal. In revisional jurisdiction under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, interference is not warranted where the dispute turns purely on facts and no question of law arises.

Conclusion: The rejection of the books of account and the best judgment assessment were upheld, and no interference was justified in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings of fact sustaining rejection of books of account and best judgment assessment do not give rise to an interference-worthy question of law.

---