JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, which is the Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion under Section 44 (1) of the Act: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in ruling that the best judgment assessment was uncalled for despite the non-submission of two returns and not keeping day-to-day manufacturing account ? ( 2. ) THE assessee in the instant case manufactures and sells dal and was assessed to tax under the Act for the Diwali year 1974-75, by a best judgment assessment which was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who, however, reduced the amount of tax and penalty and granted relief of a total sum of Rs. 600 to the assessee. ( 3. ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal and its contention was that it was not a case for making best judgment assessment at all. This plea found favour with the Tribunal and it recorded the following finding: Appellants first contention is that there was no justification for rejection of the accounts and the enhancement in his turnover. This contention deserved to be accepted. The only reasons given by the learned assessing authority for making best judgment assessment are that two returns were not furnished and the profit and loss account showed a loss of Rs. 2,177 and there was no day-to-day manufacturing account. These do not appear to be sufficient for rejecting the accounts. As the learned appellate authority has observed the accounts are closed and quantitative, no defects have been found therein. Under the circumstances best judgment assessment was hardly called for. However, on an application being made in this behalf by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question to this Court for its opinion. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous. As seen above, the relevant year for purposes of assessment was Diwali year 1974-75. ( 4. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous. As seen above, the relevant year for purposes of assessment was Diwali year 1974-75. Section 26 of the Act which deals with maintenance of account by a registered dealer was substituted by the M. P. Act No. 20 of 1976. Corresponding amendment was made in Rule 52 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules also by a notification dated 24th April, 1976. Section 26 of the Act and Rule 52 of the Rules as they stood after amendment make elaborate provisions for maintenance of account by a registered dealer. Section 26 of the Act and Rule 52 as they stood before amendment during the relevant Diwali year 1974-75 did not make any such provisions. They only required accounts to be maintained. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. v. Gangaram Mohanlal Mittal [1980] 45 STC 381 (MP) which was a case in regard to a period between 25th October, 1965 and 12th November, 1966, best judgment assessment had been made in the circumstances similar to those of the present case. It was held that during the aforesaid period, there was no statutory rule or regulation in force which made it obligatory for the assessee carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling utensils to maintain accounts in a particular form. Therefore, the non-maintenance of stock register, non-submission of stock list and non-maintenance of manufacturing account could not, by themselves, justify best judgment assessment under the Act. It was further held that for justifying such an assessment, the assessing authority must find that as a result of non-maintenance of stock register, non-submission of stock list and non-maintenance of manufacturing account, the method of accounting employed by the assessee was such that in his opinion the assessment could not properly be made on that basis. ( 5. ) IN the instant case, neither the Assistant Sales Tax Officer nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had recorded any finding that on account of non-maintenance of stock register, etc. , the method of accounting employed by the assessee was such that the assessment could not properly be made on that basis. ( 5. ) IN the instant case, neither the Assistant Sales Tax Officer nor the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had recorded any finding that on account of non-maintenance of stock register, etc. , the method of accounting employed by the assessee was such that the assessment could not properly be made on that basis. As has been pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee, in the instant case, maintained during the relevant year "closed and quantitative" account. No defect was pointed out in this "closed and quantitative" account, either by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. ( 6. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gangaram Mohanlal Mittal [1980] 45 STC 381, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.