Rejection of accounts requires proved suppression; cash-memo sales omissions alone were only an irregularity here.

Accounts could not be rejected where the alleged purchase suppression was not established: purchase vouchers for watch straps were available, and the return period had not yet expired at the time of inspection. The isolated fan purchase in the name of Sunakar was not shown to be a business purchase by the dealer, so it did not prove suppression on the facts. The failure to carry cash-memo sales into the sales register was treated as an irregularity because the sales themselves were supported by cash memos. In the absence of proved suppression, enhancement of sales tax was not sustainable, the returned figures were accepted, and excess tax was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's accounts could be rejected and the sales tax enhancement sustained on the basis of alleged purchase suppression and non-entry of sales in the sales register.

Analysis: The alleged purchase suppression in respect of watch straps did not survive, as the purchase vouchers were available and the return for the period was not yet due at the time of inspection. The isolated purchase of a fan in the name of Sunakar was not shown to be a business purchase by the dealer, and the explanation could not, on the facts, establish suppression. The omission to carry cash-memo sales into the sales register was treated as only an irregularity because the sales themselves were supported by cash memos. In the absence of established suppression, rejection of the accounts was not justified.

Conclusion: The accounts were not liable to be rejected, and the enhancement was set aside; the returned figures were accepted and excess tax was directed to be refunded.

---