CHANDRASHEKHAR, C. J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Karnataka Sales tax Act, 1957 read with Section 8a of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Amendment) act, 1976, the two. questions urged by the petitioner are these: (i) Whether the assessing Officer was justified in making a best judgment assessment of the turnover; and (ii) Whether the brass cradlesman manufatured by the assessee could be treated as furniture for levy of tax. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has given reasons for upholding the best judgment assessment. The assesses did not maintain the manufacturing account showing the wages paid for labour. The reason given by the Tribunal, in onr opinion, is a good one. The Tribunal has also pointtd out that, while making the estimate of the turnover, the gross profit of 25 per cent was added to cost of materials. The estimate of turnover made by the assessing authority was reasonable and does not call for interference. ( 2 ) SRI C. N. Kamath, learned counsel for the petitioner, rontended that brass cradles could not be regarded as furniture. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that brass cradle was an article of furniture. Sri Kamath drew our attention to the amendment of Item No. 108 of the Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act so as to restrict the scope of that entry to wooden furniture only. But that amendment was made subsequent to the assessment vear in question and hence has no application to the present case. ( 3 ) WE do not sec why furniture manufactured out of wood only should be regarded as furniture and furniture manufactured out of metal should not be regarded as furniture we do not see any good ground to admit this petition and accordingly we dismiss it. --- *** --- .