JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. - These two revisions under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") have been filed by M/s. Hari Steel Industries (hereinafter referred to as, "the dealer") against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench - II, Aligarh, dated October 10, 1995 whereby the appeals filed by the dealer were dismissed and the appeal filed by the Department with regard to U.P. was partly allowed and with regard to the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Central Act") the appeal of the Department was allowed and the tax liability under both the Acts were accordingly increased. The dealer is carrying on the business of manufacturing and sales of iron and steel and agricultural implements. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93 both under the State and Central Act. With regard to the relevant assessment year the dealer disclosed gross sale of Rs. 25,96,823. The taxable turnover under the said Act was shown as Rs. 12,26,463 whereas under the Central Act no sale was declared. The assessing authority noticed certain discrepancy in the return filed by the dealer and accordingly issued show-cause notice dated March 18, 1994 calling upon the dealer to submit his explanation on the five points mentioned in the notice. The first point related to difference of Rs. 85,567 in the return and the account books. The second point was with regard to decline in turnover in the relevant assessment year from the previous year. The third point on which the dealer was called upon was with regard to survey dated February 5, 1993. According to the notice at the time of survey the account books were not produced. The next point was with regard to the report submitted by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) dated June 6, 1993. According to the said report in survey/inspection dated March 2, 1993 at the business premises of S/Sri Great Rai Transporter Company, Agra Road, Aligarh certain documents were seized in which five goods receipt (bilties) were found relating to the dealer. According to these goods receipt the dealer had dispatched certain goods to the parties situate at Kanpur and Gwalior. The Sales Tax Officer (SIB) has further submitted in his report that certain rolling mills were carrying sales through the said transporter without entering those transactions in the account books. According to these goods receipt the dealer had dispatched certain goods to the parties situate at Kanpur and Gwalior. The Sales Tax Officer (SIB) has further submitted in his report that certain rolling mills were carrying sales through the said transporter without entering those transactions in the account books. Upon goods being delivered by the transporter, the goods receipts and other bills were destroyed. Thus, there was clear evasion of tax being made by rolling mills. The dealer is one of the rolling mills. The fifth point in the show-cause notice was despite the fact that dealer was manufacturer, he was not maintaining the account books as required under section 12(2) of the Act. The dealer submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice. The assessing authority did not accept the explanation tendered by the dealer on all the issues and accordingly rejected the account books and made an estimate of turnover both under the Central and the State Acts. The assessing authority by order dated March 31, 1994 held that the total sales within the State were Rs. 52 lakhs which would entail tax liability of Rs. 2,08,000 and the Central sales were Rs. 2 lakhs which would entail tax liability of Rs. 16,000. It may be noted that separate orders were passed by the assessing authority under the two Acts. The dealer preferred two appeals both under the Central and State Act. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) vide order dated May 23, 1994 partly allowed the appeals and reduced the tax liability under the State and the Central Act to Rs. 1,48,000 and Rs. 12,560, respectively. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority four second appeals were filed, two by the Department and two by the dealer both under the State and the Central Act. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated October 10, 1995, dismissed both the appeals filed by the dealer and partly allowed the appeals of the Department with regard to the State liability and enhanced the demand by Rs. 60,000 and also allowed the appeal of the Department under the Central Act and enhanced the demand by Rs. 3,440. Aggrieved by the same present two revisions have been filed by the dealer. I have heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel representing the Department. 60,000 and also allowed the appeal of the Department under the Central Act and enhanced the demand by Rs. 3,440. Aggrieved by the same present two revisions have been filed by the dealer. I have heard Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the dealer and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel representing the Department. With regard to the revision relating to the demand under the State Act, the following questions of law have been raised : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the rejection of books of account ? (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account is based on relevant considerations ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 30,00,000 ?" In the revision relating to the demand under the Central Act the following questions of law have been raised : "(i) Whether, on the facts in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in sustaining the rejection of books of account ? (ii) Whether the rejection of books of account is based on relevant consideration ? (iii) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 2 lakhs ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in denying the turnover of form C for Rs. 85,568.75 which was said before the first appellate authority ?" At the outset it has been pointed out that with regard to the point Nos. 3 and 5 mentioned in the show-cause notice by the assessing authority, the Tribunal has held in favour of the dealer. The said issues no longer remain for consideration in this revision. Coming to the first issue raised in the show-cause notice Sri Krishna Agarwal, has submitted that it was on account of bona fide mistake that the Central sales of Rs. 85,567 made to the dealer at Gwalior vide bill No. 989, dated February 12, 1993 and dispatched through transporter vide G.R. No. 4956 of even had been wrongly mentioned in the returns filed for the sales relating to within the State of U.P. According to him it should have been shown as Central sales and if it were so taken then there would be no discrepancy in the returns and the account books. With regard to the issue No. 2, it has been submitted on behalf of the dealer that on account of disturbance in the month of November and December on accounts of riots and communal violence the business had suffered as therefore, there was decline in the turnover from the previous year. In support of the said submission Sri Agarwal has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Hazari Lal and Sons, Kanpur reported in [1993] UPTC 1002. Based on the said authority and the reason given the submission is that the decline of turnover cannot be a ground for rejection of account books which have otherwise been maintained in due course. The main issue is with regard to point No. 4 as raised in the show-cause notice. In this regard it has been submitted by Sri Agarwal that out of the five goods receipt seized by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) for which show-cause notice was issued four related to it and were entered into the account books. However, one of the goods receipt No. 480, dated February 8, 1993 did not relate to the dealer. He has further submitted that out of the four admitted sales covered by the four goods receipt, related to sales made to U.P. dealers and one related to sale made to dealer at Gwalior which was an inter-State sale and liable to tax under the Central Act. According to the dealer this sale was also made against form C and instead of eight per cent (normal tax) the reduced rate of four per cent was admissible. Further submission of Sri Agarwal is that once the sales were entered into the account books which were produced before the assessing authority in which no discrepancy was otherwise found, rejection of the account books on his ground cannot be sustained. He has referred to section 12A of the Act and has submitted that the burden of proof to determine the taxable turnover other than what has been disclosed by the dealer lies upon the Department and the assessing authority is required to discharge its burden by collecting cogent material to record a finding against the dealer with regard to the escapement of turnover. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax v. Laki Bartan Store, Mauranipur, Jhansi reported in [2005] 28 NTN 69. On the other hand Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel, has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal based on consideration of material evidence on record is a pure finding of fact and does not call for any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the decline in turnover coupled with other factors can be a ground for rejection of account books. He has further submitted that there was clear discrepancy in the returns submitted by the dealer and the account books and therefore, also the rejection of account books cannot be said to be bad. He further submits that even though the dealer admits that the transaction with the Gwalior party was a Central sales but as it had not filed any revised return as required under law under section 7(1)(c) of the Act, the rejection is fully justified. With regard to the five goods receipts seized by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB), Sri Pandey, learned standing counsel, submits that the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) had given a show-cause notice to the dealer to explain about the said transactions and also to produce the account books but the dealer failed to turn up. He neither filed any reply nor produced the account books to verify the five transactions covered by the said goods receipts. Therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the dealer that it had all intentions of evading the tax by not incorporating those transactions in this account books at the time the sales were made. Subsequent entries of those transactions after the notice was given by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) clearly showed that there was intention to evade tax and cannot give any benefit to the dealer. Thus the rejection of account books was fully justified. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and having perused the material available on records I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus the rejection of account books was fully justified. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and having perused the material available on records I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The submission of the learned counsel for the dealer that reduction in turnover in the relevant assessment year from the previous assessment year should not be a ground for rejection of the account books, may be sustainable provided it was the only ground for rejection of account books. The judgment relied upon in the case of Hazari Lal and Sons [1993] UPTC 1002, is not of any help for the reason that in the said case decline in turnover was only ground for rejection of account books which this court held to be not tenable, subject to plausible explanation being advanced by the dealer. In the present case although the dealer had given an acceptable explanation that on account of disturbance in the months of November and December in the relevant assessment year, the business activity had suffered and, therefore, there was a fall in the turnover but the reason for rejection of account books is not only on account of reduction in turnover but also for other reasons for which the explanation tendered by the dealer cannot be accepted. With regard to the five bilties, which were recorded in the survey made by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) from the business premises of the transporter, no acceptable explanation has been put forth by the dealer. Merely because transaction of four out of five goods receipts were entered in the account books subsequent to the show-cause notice given by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) it cannot be presumed that the dealer had maintained the account books in order and in accordance with law. The Sales Tax Officer (SIB) had given a show-cause notice with regard to the transaction covered by five goods receipts but the dealer admittedly failed to appear before the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) nor did he submit any explanation. Presumption is that there was some irregularity with regard to the said transaction. The Sales Tax Officer (SIB) had given a show-cause notice with regard to the transaction covered by five goods receipts but the dealer admittedly failed to appear before the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) nor did he submit any explanation. Presumption is that there was some irregularity with regard to the said transaction. Further, the dealer having admitted that the transaction covered by one of the goods receipts related to an inter-State sale against form C and the dealer was liable to pay tax at the lower rate of four per cent instead of normal rate of eight per cent, but no such turnover having been disclosed under the Central Act nor any revised return having been filed by the dealer even after receiving show-cause notice given by Sales Tax Officer (SIB) as also the assessing authority during assessment, it appears that the dealer had all intentions of evading tax. The dealer had declared no turnover under the Central Act in his return which stand he had maintained till the stage of assessment and at no point of time did the dealer file any revised return disclosing the said turnover under the Central Act. The submission of the learned counsel for the dealer that the burden lay on the assessing authority to establish by way of cogent evidence that the return filed by the dealer was not in order entailing rejection of account books also cannot be sustained for the reason that the assessing authority as also the Tribunal have recorded the finding for rejection of account books based on material which was the survey report of the Sales Tax Officer (SIB), show-cause notice given by the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) and avoidance by the dealer of participating before the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) by either appearing or giving any reply to the show-cause notice. In addition it was also recorded that the returns filed did not tally with the account books and that there was discrepancy in the same. This was enough material for the assessing authority to reject the account books. There was another reason for rejection of the account books which was the admission by the dealer that there was a Central sale, in which no return had been filed. This was enough material for the assessing authority to reject the account books. There was another reason for rejection of the account books which was the admission by the dealer that there was a Central sale, in which no return had been filed. The decision in the case of Laki Bartan Store [2005] 28 NTN 69, therefore, is of no help to the dealer as the burden had been duly discharged by the assessing authority while arriving at the conclusion that the account books had not been properly maintained and were liable to rejection. The assessing authority as also the Tribunal have considered the material on record in arriving at the finding of not accepting the account books and making an estimation of turnover which are pure finding of fact not warranting any interference in revisional jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the assessing authority and the Tribunal are not without basis and, therefore, do not warrant any interference. In this view of the matter both the revisions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.