Judgment :- The Judgment was delivered by K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J. The Revenue is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is a dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He is doing business in oil. We are concerned with the assessment year 1982-83. The assessee's business place was inspected by the Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kannur on October 5, 1982. The verification of the stock with reference to the accounts showed excess of 150 tins in the stock of coconut oil, deficit of 44 tins in the stock of gingelly oil, deficit of 8 tins in the stock of castor oil, excess of one tin in the stock of major refined oil, etc. There was also a deficit of 7 bags in the stock of coconut oil cake and excess of 19 bags in the stock of groundnut oil cake. The inspection took place when the assessee's father, Shri Kunhikannan Nair, was in the shop. A detailed inspection report was drawn. The concerned mahazar is available in page 55 of the files. The representative of the assessee, who was available in the shop, declined to sign in the report or acknowledge receipt of a copy of the report. The Intelligence Officer sent notice to the assessee to produce accounts. He did not respond. The files were handed over to the regular assessing authority. A detailed pre-assessment notice was sent by the Sales Tax Officer, II Circle, Thalasserry, on July 18, 1985 (page 97 of the files). In the pre-assessment notice, amongst others, the assessing authority referred to the inspection by the Intelligence Officer on October 5, 1982, gave details regarding the discrepancies noticed and prima facie found that there was large scale suppression. The assessee filed his objections to the pre-assessment notice. The detailed objection is dated October 25, 1985. The fact that an inspection was conducted on October 5, 1982, was not disputed. The details noted in the inspection report were disputed. 2. The assessing authority made a best judgment assessment on November 6, 1985. The returns filed by the assessee as also the accounts were rejected and a best judgment assessment was effected. From the order of assessment dated November 6, 1985, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax. 2. The assessing authority made a best judgment assessment on November 6, 1985. The returns filed by the assessee as also the accounts were rejected and a best judgment assessment was effected. From the order of assessment dated November 6, 1985, the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax. Simultaneous to the assessment proceedings, the assessing authority also initiated proceedings under section 45-A(1)(b) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. After affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee, the assessing authority, by order dated November 6, 1985, held that the dealer committed the offence of failure to maintain true, correct and complete accounts and so, a penalty under section 45-A(1)(b) is leviable. A penalty of Rs. 5, 000 was imposed. The assessee filed a revision from the aforesaid order before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kannur. By order dated January 3, 1986, the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax affirmed the levy of penalty. In the revision, the main plea of the assessee was regarding the unreliability of the inspection report dated October 5, 1982. The plea was rejected. It may also be stated that the aforesaid orders passed under section45-A of the Act and affirmed in revision were assailed before this Court in O.P. No. 306 of 1986. A learned single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated October 5, 1990, dismissed the original petition. This Court also found that the assessing authority was fully justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 5, 000 after rejecting the plea of the assessee that the inspection report cannot be relied on. In the appeal filed against the quantum of assessment, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, by order dated January 25, 1986, in S.T.A. No. 656 of 1985, affirmed the rejection of the returns and the accounts, after referring to the inspection of the premises on October 5, 1982. However, modification was made in the addition made. The first appellate authority took the view that the enhancement of turnover on account of stock difference and other disparities may be limited to the extent proved with an equal addition for the remaining period, instead of the huge addition of two-third of the total turnover. The assessee took up the matter in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 85 of 1986. The assessee took up the matter in second appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 85 of 1986. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal heard the assessee as well as the Revenue, perused the relevant records and considering all aspects of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal held that there are no valid grounds for rejection of the accounts and directed the assessing authority to accept the accounts of the assessee and finalise the assessment on that basis. In so doing, the Appellate Tribunal took the view that the dealer has not acknowledged the shop inspection report, did not appear before the Intelligence Officer and the shop inspection report was not procured validly to stand the test of law since it was not prepared in the presence of the dealer. It was further held that the presence of the father of the dealer cannot be taken note of in strict legal view of the matter, especially when the father of the dealer has not appended his signature in the shop inspection report in approval of his presence. The Tribunal concluded that in such disputed circumstances, the Inspecting Officer should have prepared a mahazar as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which alone will satisfy the requirements of law. The shop inspection report was held to be not binding on the assessee. Against the acceptance of the plea of the assessee and the direction to effect the assessment as per the books of accounts as held in T.A. No. 85 of 1986, the Revenue has come up in revision. 3. We heard counsel for the Revenue, Senior Government Pleader Mr. V. C. James, as also counsel for the respondent-assessee, Mr. Ramesh Chander. 4. Counsel for the Revenue very strongly urged that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is unreasonable, illegal and unjustified and the failure to give effect to the inspection report dated October 5, 1982, was a palpable error committed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It was submitted that based on the inspection report, proceedings were initiated under section45-A of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 5, 000 was levied by order dated November 6, 1985, which was affirmed in revision on January 3, 1986 and that proceeding met with approval at the hands of this Court in O.P. No. 306 of 1986. The above proceedings concluded the matter. 5, 000 was levied by order dated November 6, 1985, which was affirmed in revision on January 3, 1986 and that proceeding met with approval at the hands of this Court in O.P. No. 306 of 1986. The above proceedings concluded the matter. In the light of the above proceedings, it is idle for the assessee to contend against the legality, validity and the accuracy of the inspection report dated October 5, 1982. The learned Government Pleader further argued that even assuming that the inspection report is not prepared in accordance with law nor signed by the assessee or his representative, it is a report prepared in the usual course of business by a public officer, in the exercise of his official duties and it has got probative value. The presumption is that official acts are done or performed in the usual and routine course and it is for persons who dispute the accuracy and legality of the same to prove the contra. That has not been done in the instant case. On the other hand, the official act has been found to be correct and justified on facts, in view of the revisional order dated January 3, 1986 and the judgment of this Court in O.P. No. 306 of 1986 dated October 5, 1990. It is not the law in taxation matters that an inspection report, though not in conformity with the law, has no value. It has a probative value and can be relied on for assessment purposes. Reliance was placed on the following decisions : Kuruma v. Queen 1955 Indlaw PC 3 (PC), M. K. Annamalai Chettiar and Co. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 1965 Indlaw MAD 141 (Mad.), New Street Oil Mills v. Stare of Kerala 1977 Indlaw KER 39 (Ker) and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), Income-tax 1973 Indlaw SC 213 (SC). 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that the inspection report cannot be relied on in the absence of the signature of the dealer, that no independent witness has vouchsafed the accuracy of the proceedings and that it has not been proved that the inspection was done in accordance with law. So, the inspection report dated October 5, 1982, is inadmissible. What is more, the plea of the assessee that the Inspecting Officer should be made available for cross-examination was not allowed. So, the inspection report dated October 5, 1982, is inadmissible. What is more, the plea of the assessee that the Inspecting Officer should be made available for cross-examination was not allowed. This is unfair and against the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Tribunal was justified, in the circumstances, in ignoring the inspection report dated October 5, 1982. Having found that the main plank relied on for the best judgment is non best, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the acceptance of the accounts and to make an assessment on that basis. 6. Having heard the rival pleas urged before us, we are of the opinion that the plea of the Revenue should succeed. The entire assessment files were placed before us, containing 166 pages. The important documents, which have relevance for the purpose of the case are contained at pages 55 (inspection report), 53 (communication by the Intelligence Officer to the Sales Tax Officer), 97 (pre-assessment notice), 117 to 123 (assessee's reply thereto), 131 to 135 (assessment order), 141 (notice for levy of penalty under section 45-A), 145 to 147 (reply by the assessee thereto dated October 25, 1985), 155 and 156 (order levying penalty), 161 and 162 (revisional order confirming the same) and 163 to 166 (order in the first appeal from the order of assessment). The judgment in O.P. No. 306 of 1986 is seen stitched on the top of the assessment files. The Appellate Tribunal has stated in para 9 of its order that it heard both sides and also perused the relevant records and considered all aspects of the issues. The decisions brought to our notice by the Revenue - Annamalai Chettiar and Co.'s case 1965 Indlaw MAD 141 (Mad.), New Street Oil Mills' case 1977 Indlaw KER 39 (Ker) and Pooran Mal's case 1973 Indlaw SC 213 (SC) are to the effect that even if a search and seizure of documents or account books is illegal, the documents or materials obtained on search or seizure can be looked into and relied on for the purpose of making the assessment. They have got probative value. It is a public document prepared by a public officer in the performance of his official duties. Law presumes that the proceedings so recorded are accurate and were made as reflected in the documents. They have got probative value. It is a public document prepared by a public officer in the performance of his official duties. Law presumes that the proceedings so recorded are accurate and were made as reflected in the documents. It is certainly open to a party, who is aggrieved by the said record, to assail the same in appropriate proceedings and lead evidence and demonstrate that the official record so prepared is unreliable or cannot be relied on. But the said official record can be discarded only for cogent, valid and proper reasons and not in a light-hearted manner. 7. Considered in the above perspective, we are candidly of opinion that the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal committed a very serious error of law when it discarded the inspection report dated October 5, 1982. On that short ground, the order of the Appellate Tribunal is infirm. We hold so. That apart, the inspection report in the case dated October 5, 1982, was found to be correct in a revision filed by the assessee by order dated January 3, 1986 by the Deputy Commissioner. The attempt of the assessee to assail the said inspection report again did not meet with success. In O.P. No. 306 of 1986, the effect of the said proceedings met with judicial approval. This glaring aspect was totally missed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. This is a very clinching factor to reject the plea of the assessee assailing the inspection report dated October 5, 1982. We are surprised that the departmental member pronouncing the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated February 25, 1991, conveniently missed the above fundamental aspects and proceeded to decide the validity of the inspection report uninformed even by the elementary principles of law governing the said matter. We have no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is illegal, unreasonable and unfair. On the above grounds, we set aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal dated February 25, 1991. 8. With regard to the plea of the assessee that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the Inspecting Officer, we are of the view that the matter is concluded against the assessee by the Full Bench decision of this Court in M. K. Thomas v. State of Kerala 1977 Indlaw KER 33. The above plea has no substance. We reject the said plea. 9. The above plea has no substance. We reject the said plea. 9. The only basis on which the Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of accounts is improper, is by discarding the inspection report dated October 5, 1982. We have held that the said inspection report could be relied on, legally and factually, in this case. In this view of the matter, the rejection of accounts was justified and also the quantum made in the assessment, as upheld by the first appellate authority.10. The order of the Appellate Tribunal dated February 25, 1991, is set aside. The revision is allowed with costs Rs. 1, 000.