The judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATHAK, J. - The petitioner is a dealer in toilet goods, cosmetics and other articles of general merchandise. It submitted a return of its turnover for the assessment year 1963-64. That return included the turnover of imported goods liable to tax at single point under section 3-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer made an assessment order dated 30th September, 1965, determining the turnover of imported goods at Rs. 2,60,000.00. The petitioner filed an appeal under section 9 of the Act. In the memorandum of appeal it mentioned that the turnover of imported goods taxable at single point was Rs. 85,000 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,001.73 towards the tax admitted by it to be due in respect of that turnover. When the appeal came on for hearing a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Sales Tax Officer that the entire amount of admitted tax had not been deposited by the petitioner. The objection was upheld by the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, and by his order dated 19th July, 1966, he dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The petitioner applied in revision under section 10 of the Act to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, but the revision application has been dismissed by his order dated 3rd February, 1968.

The petitioner now prays for certiorari against the order of the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and of the Judge (Revisions).

In support of the objection that the appeal was incompetent because the entire amount of admitted tax had not been deposited by the petitioner, it was pointed out before the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that the turnover disclosed by the petitioner in its return and admitted by it during the assessment proceedings was Rs. 1,11,844.02 and not Rs. 85,000 now shown in the memorandum of appeal. It was contended that the turnover disclosed in the return represented tile basis for computing the admitted tax liability. The petitioner urged in reply that the turnover of imported single point taxable goods was less than Rs. 85,000 and that the figure of Rs. 1,11,844.02 was entered in the return because some of the goods which were actually subject to multi-point tax had been erroneously entered in the turnover of imported single point taxable goods. It was pointed out that some of the goods were subject to multi-point tax and not to single point tax. The Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) did not accept the plea of the petitioner and observed :

"In the instant case the returns were filed. The net turnover was shown in those returns and during the assessment proceedings the appellant admitted the net turnover both of imported single point and multi-point taxable goods. Undoubtedly in the instant case the tax liability will be computed on the basis of the admissions."

It would appear, therefore, that in the view of the Additional Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) the turnover disclosed in the return must be taken for the purpose of determining the tax liability contemplated by the proviso to section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Judge (Revisions) endorsed the view that the appeal was incompetent.

The question then is whether in computing the admitted tax liability for the purpose of the proviso to section 9(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act the appealing assessee must be confined to the turnover disclosed by him in the return or whether it is open to him to adopt a different amount as the true turnover.

There has been considerable debate before us as to the exact meaning of the expression "the amount of tax admitted by the appellant to be due" in the proviso to section 9(1) of the Act. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the amount of admitted tax must mean the tax liability admitted by an appellant to be due at the time when he dies the memorandum of appeal. On the contrary, the submission on behalf of the respondent is that the tax liability admitted by an appellant mu