VENKATACHALAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the assessee under S 23 of-thq Sales Tax Act, 1957 is directed against the, order dated 25-3- 1981 of the Karnataka Appellate Tri- bunal, made in STA No. 954 of 1980 in appeal No. 101 (80-81 on the, file of the deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, bangalore. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, m turn, affirmed the order of assessment dated 20-6-1980 made by the Commercial-tax Officer, I circle, Davangere, for the assessment period commencing from 1-4-1978 to 31-3-1979. ( 2 ) THE assesses, Andanur Kotrabasappa and Bros. , is a trader in Davangere as the assessee did not comply with the statutory obligations for filing of the returns for the relevant assessment periods a proposition-notice dated 11-6-1979 pointtng out the non-complance by the assessee in response to the earlier notice served on 10-5-1979 and proposing to levy sales-tax on the assesses on a turn-over of Rs. 1,00,000 was caused to be issued by the assessing authority. In response to this notice, the assessee by its letter dated 29-6-1979 stated that there was a marriage in the family of the. parties on 4-7-1979 and requested for a month's Time to produce its accounts. The assessing-authority granted the time prayed Jfor. But for nearly nine months thereafter, the assessee did not bestir itself to produce; the books of account The assessingauthority could very well have proceeded to finalise the assessment exparte. Instead another notice dated 26-3-1980 served on the assessee on 3-4-80 was issued notifying the assesses that if it did not cause production of the books of account within three days from the date of service of the notice, the assessment would be finalised on the basis of the proposition notice dated 11-6-1979. Even this notice not having evoked the desired response, the assessing authority on 20-6-1980 concluded the assessment on the basis of the proposition-notice. Its appeals before the Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes and the Karnataka appellate Tribunal having been unsuccessful, the assessee has now come up in revision. ( 3 ) SRI B. K. Maniunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised three points: (I) Assessment to sales-tax made in the case on a taxable turnover of Rs 1,00,000, as against the assessed taxable turnover of Rs 3,800 for the previous year, is an antithesis of a best judgment assessment and is wholly arbitrary. ( 3 ) SRI B. K. Maniunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised three points: (I) Assessment to sales-tax made in the case on a taxable turnover of Rs 1,00,000, as against the assessed taxable turnover of Rs 3,800 for the previous year, is an antithesis of a best judgment assessment and is wholly arbitrary. (II) That the entirety of the assumed gross turnover is treated as taxable turnover which is wholly unreasonable and arbitrary. (III) That on 3-4-1980 the partner of the assessee firm did appear before the assessing-authorlty and the matter had to be adjourned on that day on account of the assessing authority proceeding on leave and that the partner was given to understand that fresh notices would be issued in this behalf. The assessment finalised without such further notice is at once improper, unfair and stands vitiated. ( 4 ) WE see no merit in any one of these contentions. It is no doubt true, as contended by the learned counsel, that a best judgment assessment should not be arbitrary but must have some basis Sri manjunath says that for the months of may to December 1978 which constituted a substantial part of the assessment period the assessee had filed form no 3 for each month and that the figures set out therein ought to have been a proper guide for the best judgment assessment. It is seen from Form no 3, found in the records made available by the leraned High Court Government Pleader at the hearing, the turnover disclosed is in the neighbourhood of Rs. 69,000, yielding an average of approximately Rs. 7,900 per month. Reckoning for 12 months on that basis would yield a figure near about the one assumed by the assessing-authority. We do not think that the figures in the best judgment-assessment are really arbitrary so as to render it infirm in law In the light of these facts, the circumstance that the assessing-authority did not rest the best judgment assessment on the previous year's taxable turnover would not vitiate the assessment This is so far as the first point is concerned. ( 5 ) THE second point is that even assuming that Rs. 1,00,000 was permissible to be assessed as the gross turnover, the whole of it ought not to have been reckoned as taxable turnover. The bulk of the turnover, savs Sri Maniunath, represented dealings as a second dealer. ( 5 ) THE second point is that even assuming that Rs. 1,00,000 was permissible to be assessed as the gross turnover, the whole of it ought not to have been reckoned as taxable turnover. The bulk of the turnover, savs Sri Maniunath, represented dealings as a second dealer. On this aspect the burden was on the assessee to substantiate that claim having regard to the provisions of S. 6a of the Act. The burden of proof that anv. transaction of turnover was not liable to tax wag on the assessee. Since the assessee made no attempt in this regard either before the assessingauthority or before the appellate authorities, the assumption of the entire turnover as taxable was a logical finale of the omission on the part of assessee to discharge the burden under S. 6a. ( 6 ) SO far as the third point that on 3-4-1980 the partner of the assessee firm did, in fact appear before the commercial tax officer and that there was an assurance from the latter that a fresh notice would be issued is concerned learned counsel did not, in our opinion, wisely press this contention, after looking into the ground No 3 urged by the assessee before the first appellte authority. ( 7 ) THERE is thus no merit In the petition. It is accordingly rejected at the admission stage smt. M. R. Vanaja, High Court government Pleader, is permitted to file memo of appearance, if it is not already filed within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .