JUDGMENT R. K. GULATI, J. - These are two connected sales tax revisions and are directed against a common order dated April 29, 1993 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench III, Agra. The dispute is in respect of the assessment year 1987-88. Sales Tax Revision No. 1446 of 1993 arises from the assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and the other Revision No. 1447 of 1993 arises from the assessment proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for the said assessment year. As the controversy which is the subject-matter of these two revisions arises from common facts, it is convenient to deal with both the revisions together. 2. In the assessment year in question the assessee dealt in manufacture and sale of cotton hosiery. It disclosed gross turnover of Rs. 11,53,378 out of which it admitted taxable turnover under the U.P. Sales Tax Act at Rs. 24,654 and deposited its tax liability accordingly. Under the Central Sales Tax Act no sales tax liability was admitted by the assessee. However, the assessing authority rejected the book version and determined the net turnover in U.P. and Central at Rs. 77,445.50 and Rs. 4,47,830.92 respectively. The assessee appealed against the aforesaid assessments but the appeals were dismissed without granting any relief to the assessee. Against the appellate orders the assessee pursued the matter further and filed second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal where both the appeals were allowed and the book version of the assessee was accepted. Feeling aggrieved the Revenue has filed these two revisions against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned Standing Counsel has disputed the correctness of the findings of the Tribunal about the setting aside of the rejection of account books and the acceptance of the disclosed version. It may be observed that the accounts were rejected on the grounds amongst other that the assessee had not maintained its accounts books in terms of section 12(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, (for short, "the Act") and it did not maintain the stock register of silk thread, etc. It may be observed that the accounts were rejected on the grounds amongst other that the assessee had not maintained its accounts books in terms of section 12(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, (for short, "the Act") and it did not maintain the stock register of silk thread, etc. Now sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act, inter alia, provides that a manufacturer liable to pay tax under the Act shall, in addition to the accounts referred to in sub-section (1) of that section maintain stock books in respect of raw materials as well as the products obtained at every stage of production. It has come on record that the assessee purchases yarn in weight and the hosiery is sold in dozens and accordingly the assessee has maintained its stock registers. The Tribunal has also found as a fact that the assessee has maintained the stock register-cum-production register, sales register, stock register of cotton yarn and stock register of cotton hosiery, challan, cash memo and purchase vouchers. There is a further categorical finding of the Tribunal that from the said account books the manufacturing activities, the purchases and sale are fully verifiable. Moreover the accounts were maintained in a similar manner as they were maintained in past and the account books for the immediately preceding three assessment years, i.e., 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 were accepted either by the assessing authority itself or in appeal. It may be pointed out that section 12(2) does particulars the form in which the stock register is to be maintained. It only indicates the nature of the record which a manufacturer is required to maintain. The object of maintaining stock books, etc., as contemplated under section 12(2) is that their consideration should with reasonable certainty indicate the opening and closing stock of a particular raw material with the assessee at every stage of production and the quantum of finished goods, etc. In the instant case, as held by the Tribunal, the assessee had maintained all the records in terms of section 12(2) of the Act and consequently there was no occasion for the assessing officer to reject the account books for non-compliance of the said provisions. 5. On March 31, 1987 there was a survey at the business premises of the assessee when stock register was found posted up to March 24, 1987. 5. On March 31, 1987 there was a survey at the business premises of the assessee when stock register was found posted up to March 24, 1987. On physical verification stock found at the spot was to the extent of 1,430.5 dozens as against 651 dozens recorded in the stock register. This was another ground on which the account books of the assessee were rejected. It is not necessary to set out the explanation given by the assessee or the finding recorded by the tax authorities. It is sufficient to observe that the assessee was able to explain the stock position to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. It would be useful in this context to reproduce the findings of the Tribunal in its own words which read as under : "............... The appellant has properly repelled this discrepancy that from March 24, 1987 to March 31, 1987 production of 253.5 dozens hosiery was made and 525 dozens hosiery were defective, which were included by the survey officer in the stock of 1430.5 dozens. To our mind this fact is verifiable from the details of stock register as on March 31, 1987 at ledger folio page Nos. 160 and 161. From the details of stock register as on March 31, 1987, it is evident that there were 525 dozens rejected hosiery, which were included in the closing stock of Rs. 3,71,704, as per trading account produced before the assessing authority. On page No. 1 dated June 30, 1986 of the paper seized on the survey, the nikasi was 586.5 dozens while according to the bills of this date, transfer is of 851 dozens and sale of 34.5 dozens has been made through bill No. 8 dated June 14, 1988 and 101 dozens hosiery was transferred to Delhi branch while packing note Nos. 65 and 66 for which the bills have been issued on September 19, 1986. The object of the authorities below was that the bills were issued in September, which to our mind, is not sufficient to reject the book version of the assessee. Similarly on September 30, 1986 nikasi on the statement is 1,099 dozens while the transfer according to the bills issued in September come to 1,272 dozens. The bills issued in September are in respect of packing notes Nos. Similarly on September 30, 1986 nikasi on the statement is 1,099 dozens while the transfer according to the bills issued in September come to 1,272 dozens. The bills issued in September are in respect of packing notes Nos. 108, 109 and 110 against which the goods were transferred in the month of August but the bills were prepared in the months of September. In such circumstances there remains no difference and the learned authorities below, to our mind have misunderstood the factual position of the case .........". 6. Learned Standing Counsel was unable to point out any infirmity in the aforesaid findings recorded by the Sales Tax Tribunal. It is apparent that on perusal of the account books and other documents, the Tribunal felt satisfied that there existed no discrepancy in the stock position of the assessee on account of which the rejection of account books could have been upheld. 7. Yet another ground for rejection of the accounts particularly concerning the inter-State sales was with reference to a paper described as Parcha No. 13 recovered on the survey dated March 31, 1987. The entries in the said parches were also explained by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. The disputed addition in turnover brought to tax as inter-State sales under the Central Sales Tax Act was made only because of entries found recorded in the said parcha No. 13. As the explanation of the assessee was accepted by the Tribunal and nothing adverse was indicated in the material gathered at the survey aforesaid, the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition by saying that there was no material on record to show that the sales of hosiery made by Delhi branch were not of the stock transferred by the head office to Delhi branch. Further the Revenue was unable to place on record any material which may go to show that there was any privity of contract and the goods moved to another State as a result of such contract. 8. It would be seen that various findings of fact set out above were recorded in the order under revision on appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal in its order has considered every pros and cons of the rival contentions and the so called adverse material which led to the rejection of account books and it was only thereafter that it accepted the disclosed book version. The Tribunal in its order has considered every pros and cons of the rival contentions and the so called adverse material which led to the rejection of account books and it was only thereafter that it accepted the disclosed book version. The findings recorded by the assessing authority were found wholly untenable. In my opinion, on facts the Tribunal was fully justified in directing that no case for any addition to the disclosed turnover was made out. The learned Standing Counsel was unable to point out any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In fact, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law. 9. Both the revisions are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, rejected. Petitions dismissed.