JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. - Heard Sri M. M. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel representing the opposite - party. The dealer has filed this revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") against the judgement and order of the Trade Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad dated June 30, 2007. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2002-03 with regard to the liability under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Although the dealer has raised several questions of law but in effect they can be summarised as following two questions only : (1) Whether, on the facts of the case the authorities below were justified in enhancing the turnover even though the account books maintained by the dealer as required under law were found to be correct except that the average selling rate was not accepted ? (2) Whether the authorities below were justified in enhancing the selling rate without there being any material on record ? The dealer is involved in manufacturing of rice. For the same it has to purchase paddy which is the raw material. In the relevant assessment year the dealer purchased 14296 quintals of paddy valued at Rs. 75,76,880 and paid purchase tax of Rs. 1,51,538 at the rate of two per cent. With regard to the production the dealer disclosed that he had opening stock of 4607.48 quintals. It further showed that the rice produced in that year was 9712.99 quintals. The total quantity of rice sold was disclosed as 12480.97 quintals. Further 579.88 quintals bran were also shown as sold in the relevant assessment year and 3624.25 quintals of husk were also sold. The dealer showed the closing stock as nil. The dealer further declared the sale within the State of U.P. amounting to Rs. 84,29,940. There is no issue with regard to the sales of bran and husk. With regard to the sales of rice made by the dealer within the State of U.P. the assessing authority was not satisfied with the average selling rate which was disclosed. It gave a show-cause notice to the dealer, calling upon the dealer to explain that when the dealer had admitted the value of the opening stock of rice at 4607.48 quintal valued at Rs. 38,70,243 (the rate of one quintal being Rs. It gave a show-cause notice to the dealer, calling upon the dealer to explain that when the dealer had admitted the value of the opening stock of rice at 4607.48 quintal valued at Rs. 38,70,243 (the rate of one quintal being Rs. 840) then why should this rate not be taken as average selling rate of the entire quantity sold during the relevant assessment year. The assessing officer, accordingly, calculated the value of the entire rice sold during the assessment year at the rate of Rs. 840 and valued it at Rs. 1,20,29,163. The assessing officer thus, calculated the difference of the total value assessed by it and the total value of rice disclosed by the dealer and issued a show-cause notice proposing to impose tax on the difference treating it to be sale of rice not disclosed in the return. This amount has been quantified at Rs. 22,47,743. The dealer submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and explained that large quantity of rice was sold by it through the Regional Food Controller, Allahabad to the F.C.I. (Food Corporation of India) Naini, Depot, Allahabad. The said sales made by it were of good quality of rice and therefore, the rate of sale in such transactions was higher. The dealer had disclosed the rate of Rs. 903 with regard to the sale made to the R.F.C. This fact is not disputed. However, with regard to the other cash sales made by it the rate varied from Rs. 680 to Rs. 720 during the month of August to September and thereafter the rate was substantially lowered for two reasons. Firstly it was broken rice and also as in the month of October the rate of rice falls down on account of the fact that new crop of paddy comes into the market. These sales were shown at Rs. 330 to 360. The assessing officer disbelieved the explanation given by the dealer only for the reason that as quantity of rice shown in the opening stock was substantial, therefore, it must have contained some low quality and broken rice also. There is no other reason given in the assessment order for rejecting the rate of sale disclosed by the dealer. The assessing officer has not recorded any finding that the prevalent market rate of rice was higher than what the dealer had disclosed in its return. There is no other reason given in the assessment order for rejecting the rate of sale disclosed by the dealer. The assessing officer has not recorded any finding that the prevalent market rate of rice was higher than what the dealer had disclosed in its return. The dealer had produced the record containing local sales and the sales made to FCI during the assessment year in question. In the month of April and May the rice has been sold only to the FCI except one transaction which has been made in favour of M/s. Sanjay Trading Company. This is also at a higher rate of Rs. 875 per quintal. The rice sold to the FCI was at the rate of Rs. 903 per quintal. It is not that the dealer had sold small quantity of rice to the FCI. A substantial quantity of rice was sold to the FCI measuring about 3500 quintals. Thereafter sale has been shown in the month of August and September which varies between Rs. 680 to Rs. 710, with one or two transactions at the rate of Rs. 720 also. However, in the month of October the sale shown is at much lower rate being Rs. 330 to Rs. 350. The assessing officer did not accept the explanation of the dealer and imposed an additional tax of Rs. 72,487. The appeal filed by the dealer was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal) by a non-speaking order only on the ground that the assessing officer had dealt with all the issues in details. The second appeal filed by the dealer was also dismissed and the same reasoning was given by the Tribunal that the opening stock of the dealer is presumed to have all quality of rice. The submission of Sri M. M. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, is that none of the authorities has actually considered the explanation given by it and there was no material before them to hold that the opening stock contained all quality of rice and secondly no consideration has been given to the fact that the dealer had sold substantial amount of rice to the FCI, which is always the best quality as they cannot compromise in the sale made to the Government Department. The best quality of rice had been sold to the FCI at higher rate which has been disclosed by the dealer in its return. The best quality of rice had been sold to the FCI at higher rate which has been disclosed by the dealer in its return. It was further submitted that the dealer was best person to disclose what quality of rice had been sold. The dealer had submitted affidavit and there was no material to rebutt the said affidavit or to record a finding contrary to it. The reasoning of the authorities below is purely based upon conjectures. It is further submitted that when all the account books of the dealer had been accepted, there was no justification to reject the selling rate disclosed by the dealer. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the rate disclosed by the dealer, the authorities ought to have accepted the same. The only reason for rejecting it is that the dealer had disclosed the value of the opening stock at Rs. 840 per quintal. On the other hand Sri B. K. Pandey, learned standing counsel, submitted that the finding recorded by the courts below are findings of fact and do not require any interference in revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that as the dealer had admitted that the value of opening stock was at Rs. 840 per quintal, it is highly improbable to believe that it would have sold the rice at a lesser rate. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, and having perused the order passed by the authorities below in my opinion there does rise question of law warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction inasmuch as the authorities without recording any finding on the prevalent market rate of rice have enhanced the same merely on conjectures without any basis. The fact that the value of the opening stock was at Rs. 840 was not disputed. It is also not disputed that the dealer had sold rice to FCI at the rate higher than the rate disclosed of the opening stock. The rice sold to the FCI was substantial in quantity. Further the explanation given by the dealer that the opening stock contained best quality of rice was supported by an affidavit and Department did not produce any material contrary to it to support its case that it contained in quality of rice. The rice sold to the FCI was substantial in quantity. Further the explanation given by the dealer that the opening stock contained best quality of rice was supported by an affidavit and Department did not produce any material contrary to it to support its case that it contained in quality of rice. Further the account books of the dealer which were required to be maintained as required under section 12 of the Act had been duly maintained and no discrepancy was found in the same. Further it cannot be disputed that in the manufacturing of rice all qualities and grades of rice was bound to be produced which may contain whole and broken rice and certain lower grade qualities which would fetch lower price. There is no finding of the authorities of the prevalent market rate of sale of standard rice and the lower quality rice. It is also not disputed that in the month of October when new crops come the price of the rice drastically comes down. In view of the above, the orders passed by the authorities below appear to have been passed merely on conjectures and the reasoning given by them for rejecting sale rate disclosed by the dealer cannot be sustained. Revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the authorities are set aside. There shall however, be no order as to costs. The turnover disclosed by the dealer may be accepted and amount of tax in excess of admitted amount if deposited may be refunded.