JUDGMENT Vikram Nath, J. - These two trade tax revisions have been filed by the dealer, M/s. North Star India Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Bench II, Ghaziabad dated February 25, 2004 whereby the two appeals filed by the dealer were party allowed granting some relief in the demand raised under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The dealer is a registered company both under the State and Central Act. It is carrying on business of manufacturing, selling and trading of poultry feed, feeds supplement, fibre glass and cooling tower spares. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1998-99. In its return the dealer declared total taxable sales under the U.P. Trade Tax Act to the tune of Rs. 61,64,538 and admitted tax liability of Rs. 2,40,692. Under the Central Sales Tax Act the dealer declared its taxable turnover to be Rs. 3,21,90,277 and admitted tax liability of Rs. 7,21,932. With regard to the liability under the State Act the assessing authority rejected the accounts book of the dealer based on the survey made on January 28, 1999 and estimated the total taxable turnover to be Rs. 91,95,988 and raised a demand of Rs. 5,75,718 on such turnover. This order of assessment dated January 22, 2002 contained certain mistakes apparent on the face of record. Accordingly, application was filed by the dealer under section 22 of the Act. The assessing officer passed fresh order on April 29, 2002 under section 22 of the Act and reduced the demand of tax to be Rs. 5,42,266. Under the Central Act, the assessing officer again made an estimate of turnover to the tune of Rs. 3,38,58,827 and determined a tax liability of Rs. 24,76,334. Here again an application under section 22 of the Act was filed and the tax liability was reduced by Rs. 63,973, thus bringing to it Rs. 24,12,361. The dealer filed two appeals under section 9 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appeal under the Central Act, whereas under the State Act the liability of tax was reduced by Rs. 40,064. Against the same, dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal. Both these appeals were partly allowed by the impugned order and demand of tax was reduced by Rs. 50,000 under both the Acts. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appeal under the Central Act, whereas under the State Act the liability of tax was reduced by Rs. 40,064. Against the same, dealer preferred two second appeals before the Tribunal. Both these appeals were partly allowed by the impugned order and demand of tax was reduced by Rs. 50,000 under both the Acts. Aggrieved by the same present revisions have been filed. Central Act : The questions of law raised in the two revisions are as follows : "(i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the order passed by assessing authority, treating the stock transfer as an inter-State sale ? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in imposing the tax liability upon the applicant/revisionist under the Central Sales Tax Act ? (iii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in disbelieving the stock transfer made by revisionist to its head office and treating the same as inter-State sale ? (iv) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not granting the benefit of form F duly furnished by the revisionist ? (v) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the best judgment assessment order and rejecting the books of account ? (vi) Whether in any view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law ? (vii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission of the applicant/revisionist ? (viii) Whether in any view of the matter the order of the Tribunals just and proper seeing the fact and circumstances of the present case ?" State Act : "(i) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in confirming the rejection of books of account and also the best judgement assessment order passed by the assessing authority ? (ii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in determining the taxable turnover in most excessive and even recording favourable findings in favour of revisionist, even then rejecting the same ? (iii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission in respect of explanation offered before the surveying authority regarding SNKET Nos. 1 and 2 respectively ? (iii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission in respect of explanation offered before the surveying authority regarding SNKET Nos. 1 and 2 respectively ? (iv) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is just and proper in confirming the orders passed by the authority below ? (v) Whether in any view of the matter the impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable in the eyes of law ? (vi) Whether in any view of the matter the order of the Tribunals is just and proper seeing the facts and circumstances of the present case ? (vii) Whether the Trade Tax Tribunal is legally justified in law in not considering the submission of the applicant/revisionist in regards the Challans available at the time of survey ?" I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the dealer and Sri B. K. Pandey learned Standing Counsel, representing the Department. From the perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, it is apparent that the reasons for raising the demand of tax under the Central and the State Acts are different but the orders passed by all the three authorities are common. With regard to the liability under the Central Act the issue which survives is with regard to rejection of certain stock transfers claimed by the dealer treating them to be inter-State sale. The assessing authority placed reliance upon the survey report in which certain documents were found. According to the assessing officer the said documents indicated that actually it was not the case of stock transfer from the factory of the dealer situate in the State of U.P. at Noida to its head office at Delhi. It was further recorded by the assessing officer that the documents which were seized apparently showed all the sales had been made from the Noida office only inasmuch as the blank Challan book of Delhi office was recovered from the office at Noida and also 63 loose Challan were found which had been filled up in the hand writing of Mr. Madan Mohan Sharma, employee of the dealer posted at Delhi. This finding of the assessing authority has been affirmed up to the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the dealer has submitted that the explanation tendered by the dealer has not been accurately considered by any of the authorities. Madan Mohan Sharma, employee of the dealer posted at Delhi. This finding of the assessing authority has been affirmed up to the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the dealer has submitted that the explanation tendered by the dealer has not been accurately considered by any of the authorities. The dealer had stated in its explanation that Mr. Madan Mohan Sharma had since been transferred from Delhi office to Noida office and therefore, 63 Challans found were rightly entered in his hand writing. Further blank Challan could not be of any help to the assessing authority for drawing any adverse inference and lastly it was submitted that the dealer had submitted forms F as against all the transactions of stock transfer claimed by it which also covered the transfer covered by the 63 loose Challans. This conclusively established that the stock transfers had been effected. The authorities below thus committed an error of law in holding such transactions to be inter-State sales. Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the dealer, has referred to section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act and according to him the burden required to be discharged by the dealer claiming transfer of goods otherwise by way of sale as required under the said provision has been duly discharged. According to the said provision it was required under law that the declaration duly filled up and signed by the principal officer of the other place of business or his agent or principal, as the case may be, containing the prescribed particulars in the prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority, along with the evidence of despatch of such goods would establish that all such transactions accompanied by such declaration would be by stock transfer. It is not in dispute that any of the form F submitted by the dealer was either found to be incorrect, forged, fabricated or did not fulfil the requirement of law so as to entail their rejection. The authorities below have not recorded any finding with regard to the ingenuity of the form F. From the perusal of section 6A of the Act, if the burden had been discharged it would be deemed to be stock transfer. The authorities below have not recorded any finding with regard to the ingenuity of the form F. From the perusal of section 6A of the Act, if the burden had been discharged it would be deemed to be stock transfer. Since all the transactions of stock transfer were covered by form F submitted by the dealer and issued by the principal officer of other place after obtaining them from prescribed authority which in this case was the State of Delhi, the claim of the dealer that stock transfer would not have been rejected appears to be correct. Thus, the orders passed by the authorities below with regard to the liability under the Central Sales Tax Act cannot be sustained and are accordingly, set side. The revision under the Central Sales Tax Act is, accordingly, allowed. Now coming to the revision relating to rejection of accounts book and estimate of turnover under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. From the perusal of the assessment order it may be noticed that at the time of survey made on January 28, 1999 a large variation was found in the entries made in the stock register and in the physical verification of such goods as mentioned in the stock register. As many as 47 items have been reported in the survey report which are quoted in the assessment order where difference was found. Learned counsel for the dealer has tried to explain that these differences could not lead to rejection of accounts book. He has referred to one item magnesium sulphate mentioned at Serial No. 2 in the list. According to him the difference which is noted in the survey report to be of 1615 kilogram had been received only on the previous date of the survey, i.e., January 27, 1999. Thus on account of paucity of time it was not recorded. Even if this explanation is accepted there is no explanation with regard to the other 46 items for which differences were found. There was no explanation for such large number of other goods. This according to me is a question which would have required evidence and no evidence having been led by the dealer to explain the difference, the view taken by the authorities below in rejecting the accounts book while determining the liability under the U.P. Trade Tax Act cannot be said to be unjustified. This according to me is a question which would have required evidence and no evidence having been led by the dealer to explain the difference, the view taken by the authorities below in rejecting the accounts book while determining the liability under the U.P. Trade Tax Act cannot be said to be unjustified. In any case all the three authorities have considered the material on record and have affirmed the rejection of accounts book. Further some relief have been granted by the appellate authority and further more by the Tribunal which is their estimation. This court in revisional jurisdiction is not inclined to make any other estimation. The finding, thus, with regard to rejection of accounts book and estimation of turnover being pure finding of fact does not call for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Thus the revision under the State Act is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, revision No. 471 of 2004 relating to the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act is allowed whereas the revision No. 470 of 2004 relating to assessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is dismissed. Any amount deposited in excess of the amount which may now be due may be refunded to the dealer in accordance with law. There shall be no orders as to costs.