JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by G. SIVARAJAN, J. - The assessee-petitioner is doing business in gold and silver ornaments in the style of M/s. Vadayattu Jewellery at Palai. For the assessment year 1985-86, the petitioner filed a return showing a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 8,99,815.26. The assessing authority for the purpose of completing the assessment called for the accounts in support of the return and verified the same. Thereafter he issued a pre-assessment notice proposing to reject the return and accounts on the following grounds : "1. No manufacturing accounts maintained. 2. No cooly paid voucher produced for the manufacturing work done. 3. No amount paid as cooly as per account. This is unbelievable. 4. G.S. 11 and G.S. 13 produced for verification. 5. No purchase bill kept for old silver purchase. 6. No stock register kept for silver. 7. As per account produced the opening stock of stones Rs. 6,100 and tools Rs. 550. No purchase effected during the year. Sales of stones Rs. 939 and tools Rs. 400 were accounted. Closing balance is noted as stones Rs. 6,200 and tools Rs. 300. From the above it is clear that the dealer is not keeping true and correct accounts of his transactions, as contemplated in the K.G.S.T. Act. It is therefore proposed to reject the books of accounts and to estimate the turnover for 1985-86 to the best of my judgment as under." 2. The assessee filed a reply explaining the items of defects pointed out in the pre-assessment notice. The reply was to the following effect : "(1) The accounts are correct and complete and has to be accepted. In the nature of their business the manufacturing accounts are G.S. 11 and G.S. 12 and they are maintaining that. The assessees stated that they had produced them for verification. Those registers are kept as per Central Excise Acts and Rules. G.S. 13 is the register kept by goldsmith. (2) Regarding cooly payment the assessee contended that they are paying piece rate remuneration to the smith and payment is entered in the day book. It is not cooly. (3) For the purchase of old silver ornaments they are entering the same in the day book and no stock register or purchase bill kept for silver. (2) Regarding cooly payment the assessee contended that they are paying piece rate remuneration to the smith and payment is entered in the day book. It is not cooly. (3) For the purchase of old silver ornaments they are entering the same in the day book and no stock register or purchase bill kept for silver. Regarding the closing stock of stones and tools the assessee contended that it does not make a reason for rejecting the accounts." 3. As could be seen from the reply, the assessee has specially stated that G.S. 11 and 13 registers were produced before the assessing authority for verification. The assessing authority did not choose to call for and verify the same. Instead, he has simply stated in the assessment order that the assessee had produced only G.S. 12 register at the time of hearing and that no other register was produced at the time of hearing or at the time of filing objections. Regarding the other defects also the assessing authority has only stated that the payment of piece rate remuneration should be proved by voucher. He has not chosen to verify the statement of the assessee that this piece rate remuneration was entered in the day book. He accordingly rejected the books of account and estimated the turnover by adding 50 per cent of the admitted turnover towards probable omissions and suppressions. Accordingly, he determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 13,49,730 as against the returned turnover of Rs. 8,99,815.26. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Additional Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam. Before the appellate authority also the assessee contended that it had maintained G.S. 11, 12 and 13 registers and they were produced before the assessing authority. But the assessing authority in the assessment order had stated that the assessee had produced G.S. 12 register only. The assessee also submitted that the defects pointed out by the assessing authority are only of general nature and that no suppression either in purchases or in sales have been noticed and therefore the rejection of accounts and the consequent estimation of turnover were not justified. The assessee also submitted that the defects pointed out by the assessing authority are only of general nature and that no suppression either in purchases or in sales have been noticed and therefore the rejection of accounts and the consequent estimation of turnover were not justified. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner also did not appear to verify the correctness of the statement of the assessee that G.S. 11, 12 and 13 registers were maintained by it and that the said registers were produced before the assessing authority by calling for and verifying the same. Instead, what was stated in the order is that the appellant would have produced all the registers, namely, G.S. 11, 12 and 13 before the assessing authority and proved that his accounts are maintained in the ordinary course of business. He further observed as follows : "The manufacturing wastage, etc., can be verified only on the production of all those registers together. So also wage register or cooly voucher and repair voucher, etc., would have been maintained and produced. The contention that the wages paid are accounted for in the day book is the admitted system cannot be accepted as the appellate could not ever prove it with ledger entries with supporting vouchers. The transactions of silver ornaments are not accounted for in the stock register. So also the proportion of profit reflected on stones and tools never reaches even at a level much below in the case of gold." The first appellate authority also without verifying the correctness of the statements made by the assessee to the effect that he had maintained and produced all the three registers before the assessing authority upheld the rejection of the accounts of the assessee. The appellate authority thereafter observed that since the assessing authority could not point out any specific instances of suppression either in purchase or in sale, the addition of 50 per cent to the returned turnover for the defects pointed out is excessive. He also observed that the appellant had transacted more quantity of gold during the year and a nexus from the turnover finally fixed for previous year is worth considerable. He accordingly modified the addition by limiting 25 per cent of the turnover. 5. The assessee took up the matter before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. He also observed that the appellant had transacted more quantity of gold during the year and a nexus from the turnover finally fixed for previous year is worth considerable. He accordingly modified the addition by limiting 25 per cent of the turnover. 5. The assessee took up the matter before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. The Appellate Tribunal referred to the defects pointed out by the assessing authority and without making any discussion in the matter simply confirmed the rejection of the accounts. Regarding the estimation of turnover also, the Tribunal has simply stated that when all the defects pointed out are taken together, it is clear that the accounts are not free from defects, that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had considered the gravity of the defects and reduced the addition to 25 per cent from 50 per cent and that the said addition sustained by the appellate authority cannot be said to be high or arbitrary. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee contended before us that the defects pointed out by the assessing authority, which have already been extracted hereinabove are in the nature of general defects only, that there was no inspection of the business premises during the assessment year in question, that the assessing authority has not pointed out any specific instance of suppression of purchases or sales and that the authorities and the Tribunal have committed serious error in rejecting the accounts and sustaining the same. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that there was no justification for sustaining any addition to the returned turnover. 7. Learned Senior Counsel also brought to our notice in support of the above submission and also relied on the appellate order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for the immediate previous assessment year 1984-85. It was submitted that the appellate Tribunal in that case considered the defects pointed out by the assessing authority and held that they are only defects of general or technical nature and in the absence of any tangible materials for the purpose of assessment rejecting the accounts and also in the absence of any case of omission or suppression either in purchase or in sale detected the accounts of the assessee cannot be rejected and estimation of turnover made. The Tribunal in that case directed the assessing authority to accept the return and accounts. 8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the department, on the other hand, contended that the defects pointed out by the assessing authority are of serious nature, that the cumulative effect of such defects is that it must be deemed that the assessee had suppressed the purchases and sales and therefore the rejection of the accounts and the estimation of turnover were justified. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that as against the addition of 50 per cent to the returned turnover made by the assessing authority, the first appellate authority had granted substantial relief by reducing the addition to 25 per cent and having regard to the probable omissions and suppressions, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the same and that no interference was called for in this revision. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also considered the matter independently. We also find that defects 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are of general or of technical nature. As already stated, defect No. 4, that is, non-production of G.S. 11 and 13 registers the assessee's specific case before all the authorities was that it had maintained G.S. 11 and 13 registers as well and that those registers were also produced before the assessing authority. Inspite the specific assertion in the reply to the pre-assessment notice and also in the grounds of appeal before the first appellate authority, none of these authorities have taken pains to direct the assessing authority to consider the same again and to verify the correctness of the same. In such circumstances, much cannot be said about the non-production of G.S. 11 and 13 registers. 10. Regarding defect No. 7, that is, as per the accounts produced, the opening stock of stones and tools were Rs. 6,100 and Rs. 550 respectively, there were no purchase during the assessment year, even after sale of stones and tools to the tune of Rs. 939 and Rs. 400 respectively, closing balance of stones and tool were noted as Rs. 6,200 and Rs. 300. The assessee, it is seen has not offered any valid explanation. However, the department has no case that any unaccounted purchase or sale of these two items have been effected by the assessee. 939 and Rs. 400 respectively, closing balance of stones and tool were noted as Rs. 6,200 and Rs. 300. The assessee, it is seen has not offered any valid explanation. However, the department has no case that any unaccounted purchase or sale of these two items have been effected by the assessee. It appears that the figure of closing stock shown in the accounts may be due to an inadvertent mistake, for, the assessing authority has not pointed out any reason for taking a contrary view. The assessing authority as well as the appellate authorities according to us had not considered the objections filed by the assessee in reply to the pre-assessment notice objectively. 11. From the above discussion, it is clear that all the defects pointed out by the assessing authority are either of a general nature or of a technical nature and it has nothing to do with any suppression in purchase or in sale. On this aspect of the matter, the first appellate authority has not bestowed its attention properly and the Tribunal also has not discussed these defects at all. We have already noticed that in respect of the assessee for the immediate preceding year, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had considered the defects more or less of similar nature and held that they are only of general nature, which cannot be a ground for rejection of the accounts. It appears that the department did not take up the matter in revision before this Court and therefore the said order had become final also. 12. In view of what we have stated here above, we are of the view that the authorities and the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the return and accounts and sustaining the same. We accordingly quash and set aside the order of the assessing authority, as modified by the first appellate authority and sustained by the second appellate authority and direct the assessing authority to accept the return and accounts of the assessee and complete the assessment accordingly. This tax revision case is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed.