JUDGMENT BALAKRISHNA ERADI, C.J. These tax revision cases arise out of assessments to sales tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) made against the same assessee, who is the revision petitioner before us for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75. The assessee is a dealer in hardware, cement, paints, asbestos cement sheets, sanitary closets, etc., carrying on business at Ottapalam. Simultaneous assessments to sales tax under the Act were made against the assessee for the five years aforementioned by 5 separate orders passed by the assessing authority on 13th November, 1976. Those were best judgment assessments made by the office under section 19 of the Act. The assessing authority found that the figures of turnover disclosed by the books of account of the assessee with regard to cement, paints, A.C. sheets and sanitary-ware were true and correct, but that the accounts did not reflect the true state of affairs in relation to the transaction in "hardware" items. Even in regard to those items the assessing authority had however found that the disparity discovered in the accounts was not due to any deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to suppress the true state of affairs, but it had been caused on account of a fraud played on the assessee by a former employer (accountant) by name Rajan. It would appear that an inspection of the assessee's shop was conducted on 31st July, 1976, and the stock position disclosed by the books as on that date had been entered in the inspection note. In view of the fact that the figures relating to the transactions in hardware contained in the books of account of the assessee were found to be unreliable, the assessing authority proceeded to determine the turnover for all the five years by estimating it at 4 times the running stock available in the shop as on 31st July, 1976, and finalised the assessments for the 5 years on the said basis. On appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Palghat, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner took due note of the fact that the assessing authority itself had been satisfied that the defects noticed in the accounts of the assessee in respect of the hardware items had been occasioned by the malpractice of the accountant and that the assessee had no intention to suppress the purchases or sales in respect of the hardware items. The appellate authority also referred to the circumstance that for the two prior assessment years, namely, 1968-69 and 1969-70, the accounts of the assessee had been fully accepted in all respects by the assessing authority. After noticing these facts the appellate authority proceeded to hold that the method adopted by the Sales Tax Office for making the best judgment assessment was reasonable "as there is no other go except to take the stock actually found on 31st July, 1976, as the running stock". The appellate authority added that "there are no convincing reasons to add four times of the running stock as no other irregularities or suppressions either in hardware or other commodities like cement, A.C. sheets, etc., are found out". On this reasoning the appellate authority held that it was reasonable to add two times the running stock of hardware and accordingly it refixed the turnover of hardware at Rs. 85,760 for each of the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 and modified the assessments accordingly. 2. Though a second appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal contending that the assessment made aforementioned was grossly arbitrary and unfair, the Tribunal rejected the said contention rather summarily by observing as follows : "We do not find any ground to interfere with this finding of the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner and reduce further the turnover of hardware as fixed by the learned Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the first appeals, as the estimates of the turnover of hardware items at 2 times the average running stock is really nominal." 3. In these revision petitions the petitioner reiterates his contention that the estimation of the turnover relating to hardware has been made arbitrarily on the basis of wild guess-work and it cannot therefore be legally sustained. 4. We find that there is force in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner. In these revision petitions the petitioner reiterates his contention that the estimation of the turnover relating to hardware has been made arbitrarily on the basis of wild guess-work and it cannot therefore be legally sustained. 4. We find that there is force in the contention advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the revision petitioner. The view expressed by the assessing authority and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that there was no other course open except to adopt the stock position disclosed as on 31st July, 1976, as the basis for making an estimation of the turnover of the assessee relating to hardware items for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75, does not appeal to us as correct or tenable. Admittedly, the data relating to the business turnover of the assessee in hardware items for the two immediate earlier years, namely, 1968-69 and 1969-70, were available before the assessing authority. No reason whatever is stated by the assessing authority as to why a best judgment assessment could not have been made taking the figures relating to those years as the basis, especially when it is seen that the accounts maintained by the assessee for these years had been accepted as fully correct and true while making the assessments for those years. No material whatever seems to have been gathered, nor have any been relied on by the assessing authority to show that there was any increase in the volume of business carried on by the assessee in hardware items during the period subsequent to 1969-70, nor does any investigation appear to have been made, so far as we can gather from the records, as to whether there was any increase or decline in the price of the hardware items between 1969-70 and July, 1976. We are stressing this aspect for the reason that when the turnover is being determined on the basis of the running stock, the prevailing market price of the commodity has a very intimate bearing in respect of the said matter. It is without advertence to any of the aforesaid relevant aspects that the assessing authority proceeded to estimate the assessee's turnover for all the five years at a flat figure by multiplying by 4 the value of the running stock available in the assessee's shop as per his account on 31st July, 1976. It is without advertence to any of the aforesaid relevant aspects that the assessing authority proceeded to estimate the assessee's turnover for all the five years at a flat figure by multiplying by 4 the value of the running stock available in the assessee's shop as per his account on 31st July, 1976. It is pertinent to note that even on that date no inventory had been taken and only the stock position disclosed by the books was noted at the inspection. We are clearly of opinion that the action taken by the assessing authority for estimating the sales turnover of the assessee in respect of hardware items for the 5 years in question at a flat rate by merely multiplying the running stock found in the shop of the assessee on 31st July, 1976, which is a date falling completely outside the relevant period, was grossly arbitrary and was based on nothing but wild guess-work. The mere reduction of the multiple from 4 to 2 effected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner does not in any way improve the situation. Unfortunately, none of these crucial aspects has been considered by the Tribunal before it proceeded to confirm the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We accordingly allow these tax revision cases, set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in so far as they relate to the determination of the turnover of the assessee in respect of hardware items for the years in question and remit the appeal to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment. It is needless to add that it will be open to the Tribunal to remand the matters to the subordinate authorities, if it so considers necessary. The parties will bear their respective costs. Petition allowed.