JUDGMENT RAMASWAMI and SARJOO PROSAD, JJ. This case is stated by the Board of Revenue under Section 21(3) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act. The following questions of law have been referred :- "(1) Whether there are any materials upon the record showing that double and sometimes treble assessment over the same sale within the same period has been made upon the assessee; and (2) whether double and treble assessment over the same sale within the same period is allowable under the law." The petitioner was assessed to sales tax under Section 10(4) of the Act by the Sales Tax Officer of Gaya on a taxable turnover of Rs. 3,40,000. The assessment related to the quarter ending 31st December, 1944. No return was filed for this quarter, but on 9th August, 1945, the authorities paid a surprise visit to the shop and seized a number of books of account, some of which were fictitious. A prosecution was initiated under Section 22 of the Act against the petitioner who subsequently admitted his guilt and compounded the offence after paying a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the Department. Thereafter the books of account which were seized were returned to the petitioner who undertook in writing that he would produce the same whenever called upon. At the time of assessment a fictitious Rokar Bahi was produced by the petitioner to show that there was a sale of Rs. 21,086-15-0 for the quarter. But from the other books which had been seized the Sales Tax Officer estimated the gross turnover to be Rs. 3,50,000 for the quarter ending 30th September, 1945. After allowing certain deductions, he determined the taxable turnover to be Rs. 3,43,000. An appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner but the appeal was dismissed. The assessee then moved the Board of Revenue but the application was also dismissed. At the instance of the assessee the High Court had required the Board of Revenue to state a case upon the questions which have been formulated. The argument of Mr. R. J. Bahadur on behalf of the assessee is that there has been double assessment with respect to certain items and the Sales Tax Officer has not properly examined the books of account or determined whether the deductions claimed by the assessee were justified. The argument of Mr. R. J. Bahadur on behalf of the assessee is that there has been double assessment with respect to certain items and the Sales Tax Officer has not properly examined the books of account or determined whether the deductions claimed by the assessee were justified. But from the statement of the case it appears that the assessee had kept both genuine and fictitious account books and since no return was filed the Sales Tax Officer was entitled to make assessment to the best of his judgment under Section 10(4) of the Act. There is no material to suggest that the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was vindictive or capricious or that the Sales Tax Officer has not made what he honestly believed to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment. It is true that the officer proceeded on the basis of the sales of the dealer for the previous quarters. But the assessment under Section 10(4) is made in summary proceedings; and the Sales Tax Officer is in no way bound to confine himself to any special kind of materials in making the assessment; and in computing the total income the Sales Tax Officer may properly take into consideration previous returns and assessment of the assessee. Since the petitioner himself had failed to produce the genuine books of account for the relevant quarter he cannot be heard to complain that the Sales Tax Officer has not allowed the claim he is now making. In Income-tax Commissioner v. Badridas ([1937] 64 I.A. 102; 5 I.T.R. 170) the Judicial Committee observed :- "The officer is to make an assessment to the best of his judgment against a person who is in default as regards supplying information. He must not act dishonestly or vindictively or capriciously, because he must exercise judgment in the matter. He must make what he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the proper figure of assessment, and for this purpose he must, their Lordships think, be able to take into consideration local knowledge and repute in regard to the assessee's circumstances, and his own knowledge of previous returns by and assessments of the assessee, and all other matters which he thinks will assist him in arriving at a fair and proper estimate; and thought there must necessarily be guess-work in the matter, it must be honest guess-work. In that sense, too, the assessment must be to some extent arbitrary." Since in this case the Sales Tax Officer had acted under Section 10(4) of the Act and made assessment to the best of his judgment the questions formulated do not really arise and we do not propose to attempt any answer to those questions. It is necessary to add that Mr. R. J. Bahadur pointed out that the assessment in this case is based upon the figures for the quarter ending 31st March, 1945, which is subject matter of M.J.C. 131 of 1948 in which we have called for a further statement of case. It was contended by the learned counsel that if the Sales Tax authorities revise the figure of assessment for the quarter ending 31st March, 1945, the position with respect to the assessment in this case will be affected. The argument is not really relevant for the disposal of this reference. Should the assessment in M.J.C. No. 131 of 1948 be revised in favour of the assessee it will however be open to him to make a claim before the taxing authorities in regard to the period covered in this case. There will be no order as to costs of this reference; but the assessee will not be entitled to a refund of the amount in deposit. Reference not answered.