JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P5 which is the modified assessment order for 2015-16 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act for short). The petitioner is a dealer in sanitary wares. During assessment year 2015-2016, the petitioner effected certain sales to individual customers who are not business entities. On the premise that some of these goods sold by the petitioner were returned, the petitioner claimed credit of the tax paid. This claim was rejected by the assessing authority in the first instance and the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority who remanded the matter to the assessing authority to determine the claim of the petitioner, after verification of such records as may be produced by the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is that the assessing authority has, on remand, rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the only record available to show return of goods is the credit note counter signed by the customer in question which, according to the assessing officer, was not sufficient to establish that goods have been returned. It was also found that the acknowledgment in the above manner was not permissible. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in respect of transactions with individual customers, the statutory provisions including the Rules do not make any provision for the manner in which the transaction of return of goods have to be recorded and the only reasonable way in which the petitioner can establish his case is by referring to credit notes counter signed by the customers in question. He refers to Rule 59 of the KVAT Rules in this regard. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the assessing officer had verified the documents submitted by the petitioner and had found certain discrepancies as a result of which the credit notes counter signed by the customers could not be accepted as reliable proof of the fact that the goods sold by the petitioner had been returned to the petitioner. It is submitted that though the Rules do not prescribe a particular mechanism for recording the transaction as above (other than the second proviso to Rule 59) the petitioner cannot have a case that merely on production of credit notes counter signed by the alleged customers in question, the claim must be straight away accepted. It is submitted that though the Rules do not prescribe a particular mechanism for recording the transaction as above (other than the second proviso to Rule 59) the petitioner cannot have a case that merely on production of credit notes counter signed by the alleged customers in question, the claim must be straight away accepted. It is submitted that the transactions will have to be verified with reference to other supporting documents including stock register, cash register etc., which should establish the return of money paid to the customer in question. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no objection in producing such other documents as may be necessary to prove the fact that the goods in question have been returned by the customer. He states that the petitioner has duly repaid the amounts to the customer by issuing credit notes and by actually effecting payments. 5. I have considered the issue and the contention raised :- 6. Section 41 of the KVAT Act deals with the issuance of credit notes and debit notes. It reads as follows; 41. Credit notes and debit notes :- (1) Where subsequent to any sale of taxable goods effected by a dealer the purchaser has returned the goods covered by the tax invoice fully or partly, within the period permitted by this Act or the Rules made there under, the dealer effecting the sale shall issue, forthwith, to the purchaser a credit note containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Where a tax invoice or a bill of sale has been issued as per the provisions of this Act or the Rules made there under and the tax payable in respect of the sale is more than the amount shown as tax charged in such tax invoice or sale bill, as the case may be, the dealer making such sale shall issue to the purchaser a debit note containing such particulars as may be prescribed.” Correspondingly Rule 10 (1) (b) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 to the extent it is relevant reads as follows; “10. Determination of taxable turnover. Determination of taxable turnover. – (1) In determining the taxable turnover, the amounts specified in the following clauses shall, subject to the conditions specified therein, be deducted from the total turnover of the dealer : - (a) [Omitted] (b) all amounts allowed to purchasers in respect of goods returned by them to the dealer within a period of ninety days from the date of delivery of the goods, where the goods are taxable on the amount for which they have been sold, provided that the accounts show the date on which the goods were returned and the date on which and the amount for which refund was made or credit was allowed to the purchaser and the deduction is claimed during the year in which the sale was effected;” Rule 59 of the aforesaid Rules deals with issuance of credit notes and debit notes. While the main part of Rule 59 deals with transactions between registered dealers. The second proviso to the Rule provides for the manner in which a credit notes shall be issued in respect of a purchaser other than a registered dealer and reads as follows; “Provided further that in the case of sales return by a purchaser other than a dealer, the credit note of the dealer shall be accepted on the basis of filing an acknowledgment given by the purchaser.” It is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had obtained acknowledgments on credit notes issued to customers (other than registered dealer) and this is sufficient compliance of the second proviso to Rule 59 referred to above. As already noticed, it is the contention of the learned Senior Government Pleader that when the Department is facing the situation where credit for tax is claimed in respect of sales returns by persons other than registered dealers, the Department cannot act merely on acknowledgments obtained on credit notes and these must be supported by stock verification wherever it is found necessary. The learned Senior Government Pleader had contended with reference to Form No.IX, which is the form of credit notes and debit notes under Rule 59 that the details contained therein must be available even in the case of sales return covered the second proviso to Rule 59 even if the same is not in Form No. IX. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader had contended with reference to Form No.IX, which is the form of credit notes and debit notes under Rule 59 that the details contained therein must be available even in the case of sales return covered the second proviso to Rule 59 even if the same is not in Form No. IX. 7. There is no dispute on the facts of this case that the petitioner is entitled to claim credit in respect of tax paid on goods returned to him after the sale was completed, provided such claim is made within the statutory period. The statutory period for claiming such credit is 90 days in terms of Rule 10 (1) (b) of the above Rules. While it is not at all difficult to determine the veracity of sales return and the consequential claim for credit in respect of transactions between registered dealers, it must be noticed that the Rules do not prescribe a detailed of procedure or format in which the sales return and consequential credit of tax paid must be claimed in respect of transactions with persons who are not registered dealers. The second proviso to Rule 59 only provides that the dealer must obtain an acknowledgment. However, where the Department wishes the verify the veracity of such claim for credit even when it is supported by an acknowledgment, as provided for in the second proviso, it will be always incumbent on the dealer to ensure that the claim for credit on account of sales return is also reflected or supported by other documents such as stock register and sales return ledger which has necessarily to tally with the acknowledgment obtained on credit notes in terms of the second proviso to Rule 59. 8. Taking note of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P5 order can be set aside with a direction to the assessing authority (1st respondent) to reconsider the matter after verifying the stock register and the details regarding repayment of amounts to the credit of the customer which will be produced by the customer in respect of each of the transactions. It will be open to the 1st respondent to call for and verify such other documents as may be necessary to establish the claim of the petitioner. It will be open to the 1st respondent to call for and verify such other documents as may be necessary to establish the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the 1 st respondent on 30-06-2022 with all documents including stock register and cash ledger and such documents as may be necessary to prove his claim. The matter shall, thereafter, be adjudicated after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The writ petition will stand disposed of as above. The needful be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.