JUDGMENT P. A. MOHAMMED, J. – The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act"). He is doing business in the manufacture and sale of hawai chappels. The first respondent, Intelligence Officer, inspected the business premises of the petitioner on September 10, 1990 and prepared a shop inspection report evidenced by exhibit P1. On the basis of exhibit P1 and the inspection results obtained during inspection the first respondent has proposed to initiate proceedings under section 45-A of the Act. Accordingly a notice was issued by the first respondent on July 19, 1991 to which the petitioner has filed exhibit P3 objection. After considering the said objection the first respondent passed exhibit P2 order levying penalty of Rs. 7,054 for the suspected evasion of tax and Rs. 250 for non-maintenance of correct and true accounts for the year 1990-1991. As against the said order the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Kottayam, who by exhibit P4 order reduced the penalty in so far as it relates to suspected evasion of tax to Rs. 3,700. Being dissatisfied with the said order a further revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by exhibit P5 confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Exhibit P5 order is under challenge. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. By exhibit P2 the first respondent, Intelligence Officer, has noticed the following irregularities : "(1) Kurippu, i.e., the book of original entry was not written up-to-date. It is seen written only up to September 5, 1990 even though there were business transactions since September 5, 1990. This is clear violation of sub-rule (3) of rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. (2) Stock variations as detailed below were noticed when the physical stock ascertained on inspection was compared with the accounts. 1. Hawai chappels - 3,272 Nos. excess 2. Hawai sheet - 68 Nos. excess." From the above irregularities the Intelligence Office come to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provisions of section 27 read with rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 45A and section 46 of the Act. A fine of Rs. excess 2. Hawai sheet - 68 Nos. excess." From the above irregularities the Intelligence Office come to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provisions of section 27 read with rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 45A and section 46 of the Act. A fine of Rs. 250 was imposed for the non-maintenance of true and correct accounts and a penalty of Rs. 7,054 was levied for the suspected evasion of tax. The said penalty amount represents double the amount of tax levied on the estimated turnover of Rs. 34,420. The quantum of penalty for the suspected evasion of tax was reduced by the Deputy Commissioner by exhibit P5 order on the ground that the quantum of penalty imposed was found to be excessive in view of the nature of the irregularities noticed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner firstly challenges the levy of Rs. 250 for non-maintenance of true and correct account books. In exhibit P3 explanation submitted by the petitioner it is admitted that the kurip book was written only up to September 5, 1990 at the time of inspection on September 10, 1990. There was no explanation at all as to why the book was not written up-to-date. Of course, the case sought to be propounded by the petitioner in this case is that the accountant was absent. Such a case was not projected anywhere before the authorities below. If there was an explanation for the failure to write the kurip book up-to-date, it would have been possible for this Court to examine whether such a case is bona fide or not. In this case levy of penalty is on the basis of the admission of the dealer that the kurip book was written only up to September 5, 1990. When the petitioner has no explanation so far as the default committed by him there is no question of higher degree of proof. Let us examine rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. When the petitioner has no explanation so far as the default committed by him there is no question of higher degree of proof. Let us examine rule 32 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963. Sub-rule (1) of rule 32 directs that every person registered under the Act and every dealer who is so required by an assessing authority by notice served in the prescribed manner, shall keep and maintain the following books of accounts disclosing true and completed accounts of his daily transactions showing the goods produced, manufactured, bought and sold by him and the value thereof separately together with the vouchers and bills : (i) a daily cash book (ii) a journal (iii) a ledger. As far as the daily cash book is concerned, what is contemplated under clause (i) of sub-rule (1) is that a record of all cash receipts and payments, kept and maintained from day to day indicating the cash balance in hand at the end of each day shall be maintained. Maintenance of this daily cash book is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The only question is if the daily cash book is not maintained up-to-date whether such non-maintenance would entail penal consequences. In the absence of any explanation by the dealer for the failure to keep the books up-to-date in this case, the levy of penalty cannot be avoided. In view of the above discussion, I am persuaded to hold that the levy of penalty of Rs. 250 for the non-maintenance of the daily cash book up-to-date is properly in order. 5. Secondly it was argued that the method of fixing the stock variation in hawai chappels by estimation is arbitrary. I do not find any symptoms of arbitrariness in the process of fixation of the production of chappels. What I find is the process adopted by the Intelligence office Officer is reasonable. According to the Intelligence Officer, production of chappels out of 25,229 numbers of hawai sheets at the rate of 3.75 pair is 94,609 pairs. Sales from April 1, 1990 to September 10, 1990 is 94,023 pairs. Balance is 586 pair. But the stock as per the shop inspection report is 3,858 pairs. That means there is excess stock of 3,272 pairs. What counsel contends is that this is a fixation of estimation without any basis. Sales from April 1, 1990 to September 10, 1990 is 94,023 pairs. Balance is 586 pair. But the stock as per the shop inspection report is 3,858 pairs. That means there is excess stock of 3,272 pairs. What counsel contends is that this is a fixation of estimation without any basis. In this context it is apt to refer exhibit P1 shop inspection report wherein it is admitted that average of 3 3/4 pairs of chappels are obtained from hawai sheet of average weight of 1.950 kgs. It is on that basis estimation has been made. In exhibit P3 reply the petitioner has no case that he has not admitted that the average of 3 3/4 pairs of chappels cannot be obtained from one hawai sheet. On the contrary in exhibit P3 it is stated that the account of the petitioner shows average of 3.89 pair from one sheet. The Board of Revenue has evaluated the contention and observed that the stock variation arrived by estimating the production of hawai chappels at 3.75 pairs per sheet is therefore found to be reasonable. In view of the discussion aforesaid it is difficult for this Court to have a different conclusion from what has been found by the Board of Revenue in exhibit P5. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the orders levying penalty under section 45-A cannot be disturbed. The original petition is dismissed. Order on C.M.P. No. 2080 of 1993 - Dismissed. Petition dismissed.