Trade tax remand power cannot revive a case for a minor purchase discrepancy when disclosed turnover is otherwise supported.

A minor discrepancy in purchase records did not justify remand for fresh inquiry where the relevant bill and seized papers already disclosed the position and no suppression or understatement was found in the remaining purchases or sales. Rejection of account books under Section 12(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act may be warranted where manufacturing accounts are not maintained, but a best judgment addition is not automatic in every case. The remand power must serve the ends of justice and cannot be used to give the Revenue a second chance without showing a substantial infirmity in the appellate order. The first appellate authority's acceptance of the disclosed turnover was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the assessing authority for further inquiry on the basis of a minor discrepancy in purchase records, and whether the first appellate order accepting the disclosed turnover should be restored.

Analysis: Rejection of account books under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act may be justified where manufacturing accounts are not maintained, but a best judgment addition is not an inevitable consequence in every case. The record showed only a negligible discrepancy in the purchase of thermosate patti, while no suppression or understatement was found in the remaining purchases or sales. The discrepancy was already ascertainable from the bill and seized papers, and further investigation was unnecessary. The power of remand exists to advance the ends of justice and not to grant the Revenue a fresh opportunity where no substantial infirmity in the appellate order is shown.

Conclusion: The remand order was unjustified and the first appellate authority's acceptance of the disclosed turnover was restored.

---