JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Director, Industries & Commerce, Government of Tripura whereby he held that the petitioner M/S. Tripur Polymer Private Limited (TPPL) had made a wrong claim that the value addition was 32.43% and also held that TPPL had wrongly maintained two sets of accounts. 2. Earlier, one Writ Petition No.501 of 2014 was filed by M/S. Vishal Pipes Limited. In the said petition, Vishal Pipes had challenged the award of tender to M/S. TPPL basically on the ground that TPPL was not entitled to any price preference being a local unit since the value addition was less than 30%. At that time, the main disputed fact was what was the value addition made by TPPL. We had also found that TPPL had filed two separate balance sheets for the same year. Therefore, this Court had passed the following directions:- “10. We are not accountants and we cannot decide what is the value addition. We also are not qualified to decide what are the correct accounts. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- i) The respondent No.8 shall produce before the Director, Industries & Commerce all his accounts for the relevant years and shall satisfy the Director, Industries & Commerce that the accounts books are properly maintained. ii) That the Director, Industries & Commerce shall give hearing both to the petitioner and respondent No.8 in this regard. iii) The Director, Industries & Commerce may take help of an independent Chartered Accountant or some well qualified person in accounts from the State of Tripura to decide whether the respondent No.8 is entitled to the benefit of the Incentive Scheme or not. iv) The Director, Industries & Commerce shall decide the entire matter on or before 31st May, 2015. v) Till that time, no further orders shall be placed on respondent No.8. vi) In case, it is found that respondent No.8 was eligible and entitled to the benefits of Incentive Scheme then the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) i.e. Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) to the State and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) to respondent No.8. vi) In case, it is found that respondent No.8 was eligible and entitled to the benefits of Incentive Scheme then the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) i.e. Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) to the State and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) to respondent No.8. In case, the Director, Industries & Commerce finds that the accounts given by the respondent No.8 are not proper, respondent No.8 shall be burdened with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) to be paid to the State of Tripura. Furthermore, no order shall be placed on him for a period of 3(three) years, if the accounts submitted by him are found to be false.” 3. It is not disputed before us that the Director of Industries & Commerce gave a hearing to the parties. It is also not disputed that the Director took the help of Chartered Accountants to decide the dispute. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that neither the Director nor the Chartered Accountants examined the books of accounts and therefore their findings are incorrect. 4. At the outset, we may state that there are two findings against the petitioner. The first is that he was maintaining two sets of accounts. With regard to this finding it would be pertinent to quote what has been stated by the petitioner before the Director:- “It is also mentioned by TPPL in regards to the allegation of maintaining two sets of balance sheets that the balance sheet submitted to Registrar of Company has got no relevancy in getting the benefit of procurement preference certificate and the said balance sheet was submitted to ROC as per company Act.” 5. This answer to say the least is totally illegal and wrong. How can company have two sets of balance sheets? The company urged the Director to look at the balance sheet which had not been filed before the Registrar of Companies and not to consider the balance sheet which had been filed before the Registrar of Companies. Under the Companies Act, every company is required to maintain statutory books of accounts and on the basis of the statutory books of accounts, the balance sheet has to be prepared and every year the balance sheet has to be filed before the Registrar of Companies concerned. Under the Companies Act, every company is required to maintain statutory books of accounts and on the basis of the statutory books of accounts, the balance sheet has to be prepared and every year the balance sheet has to be filed before the Registrar of Companies concerned. It is only this balance sheet which is filed before the Registrar of Companies which has statutory and binding force and there can be no other legal or valid balance sheet. 6. With regard to the second prayer that the account books have not been looked into, it is obvious that those account books which are not related to the statutory balance sheet cannot be looked into. It is more than obvious that the petitioner was maintaining two separate sets of account books one for the purpose of filing before the Registrar of Companies and one for claiming benefits from the State of Tripura. 7. We also find that the Director appointed Chartered Accountant M/S. Kaushik Debnath and Associates, who examined and analyzed the balance sheets for the year 2013-14 in the light of the preparation of the cost pricing structure of items of the goods. They examined and prepared the cost pricing structure and the Chartered Accountant’s held that the Company could not have maintained two different balance sheets with variant accounting figures as this is not recognized commercial practice. Since TPPL is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, it has to have an audited balance sheet and there cannot be more than one set of audited balance sheet. Not only this, another set of Chartered Accountant M/S. Gee and Gee have also analyzed the figures and come to the conclusion that the value addition is the 22.87% and not 32.43%. It is urged that this has been done only on the basis of the balance sheet and not on the basis of the books of account. As already held by us in our earlier order, we are not the experts and when two sets of Chartered Accountants have done their jobs, we expect that they must have done their job after examining all the relevant documents. Neither M/S. Gee and Gee Chartered Accountants nor M/S. Kaushik Debnath Associates are Government functionaries. They are independent Chartered Accountants and they would not submit wrong report pursuant to the orders of this Court. This argument cannot be accepted. 8. Neither M/S. Gee and Gee Chartered Accountants nor M/S. Kaushik Debnath Associates are Government functionaries. They are independent Chartered Accountants and they would not submit wrong report pursuant to the orders of this Court. This argument cannot be accepted. 8. It is lastly contended by Mr. Biswas that the penalty of not placing orders for 3 years on the petitioner is unduly harsh. This punishment has been inflicted on the basis of the clear cut directions given by this Court in its earlier judgment which was not challenged by any party. No sympathy can be shown to a person who admittedly has two totally different balance sheets. 9. Therefore we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.