JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M. C. C. No. 310 of 1984 (Tejwala Company, 285-Marhatal, Jabalpur v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M. P. , Indore) also. ( 2. ) THE Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, which is the Tribunal constituted under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has referred the following common questions in both these cases to this Court for its opinion under Section 44 (1) of the Act : (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in law to make assessment under Section 18 (4) (d) when there was nothing wrong with the regular method of accounting employed by the applicant ? (2) Whether the assessing officer was justified in basing his judgment on the facts pertaining to ,the subsequent year and not to the year under consideration for rejecting the gross turnover and taxable turnover disclosed by the applicant ? (3) Whether, on the facts-and circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Officer was justified in making an addition of Rs. 5,88,110 to the gross turnover and taxable turnover declared by the applicant ? (4) Whether the basis of enhancement, i. e. , seizure books Nos. 15 and 16, adopted by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the appellate authorities was correct in law when in fact, seizure books Nos. 15 and 16 did not relate to the year of assessment ? (5) Whether the disclosure made under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme of Income and Wealth, 1975 could be made the basis of enhancement when the State Government had specifically stated that no adverse inference will be drawn in such cases ? (6) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed under Section 43 (1) at Rs. 24,000 by the Sales Tax Officer and confirmed by the appellate authorities was justified and could be sustained ? ( 3. ) THE assessee is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of sales and supply of hardware, tools and machinery parts, etc. These cases relate to the assessment year 1973-74 for the period between 26th October, 1973 to 13th November, 1974. The premises of the partnership firm were raided on 6th December, 1975 by the Flying Squad Officer and several books of accounts were seized including books Nos. These cases relate to the assessment year 1973-74 for the period between 26th October, 1973 to 13th November, 1974. The premises of the partnership firm were raided on 6th December, 1975 by the Flying Squad Officer and several books of accounts were seized including books Nos. 15, 16 and 21. Relying on the report of the Flying Squad Officer and the relevant books which had been seized, the Sales Tax Officer passed an order of assessment on 28th February, 1979 under Section 18 (4) (d) of the Act. In other words it was an order of best judgment assessment. Appeal against that order preferred by the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. Aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal before the Tribunal which too was dismissed on 12th January, 1981. The Sales Tax Officer had also imposed penalty under Section 43 (1) of the Act on the assessee. The appeal and the second appeal against the order of imposition of penalty were also dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Tribunal. The assessee thereupon seems to have made two applications-one in the assessment proceedings and other in the penalty proceedings for referring certain questions to this Court for its opinion under Section 44 (1) of the Act and it is by order passed on those applications that the aforesaid questions have been referred to this Court. ( 4. ) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that since the raid was made in the business premises on 6th December, 1975, which fell in the assessment year 1974-75, the books of account which were seized in the raid could not be relied on for passing an order of assessment with regard to the assessment year 1973-74. What transpired at the time of raid and what was the nature of account books which were seized, has been mentioned in detail by the Tribunal in its appellate order. From their perusal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion and in our opinion, rightly that the relevant account books which were seized established that the assessee had not only suppressed the sales but also the purchases even with regard to the assessment year 1973-74. For instance, it has been pointed by the Tribunal that seizure book No. 20 indicated that stock as on 14th November, 1974 was of Rs. 2,85,923. For instance, it has been pointed by the Tribunal that seizure book No. 20 indicated that stock as on 14th November, 1974 was of Rs. 2,85,923. 45 but it was shown by the assessee in its books of accounts as of Rs. 48,347. 63 only. As seen, the relevant period of assessment was between 26th October, 1973 to 13th November, 1974. When the stock on 14th November, 1974 indicated the discrepancy pointed out above, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in taking the view that the sales and purchases even during the assessment year 1973-74 had been suppressed. That apart, the Tribunal has also placed reliance on certain admissions made by the assessee, which supported the books of accounts which were seized in the raid on 6th December, 1975. For these reasons, it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any error in taking into consideration such of the books of accounts which were seized on 6th December, 1975, and were relevant to indicate that there was suppression of sales and purchases even during the assessment year in question, namely, 1973-74. ( 5. ) IT was then urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that at best it was a case of suppression of stock and not of suppression of sales and purchases. We find it difficult to agree with this submission either. The stock at hand constitutes the difference between the purchases and sales in so far as an assessees dealing in purchases and sales of goods is concerned. Consequently, the suppression of sales and purchases of goods results in suppression of stock. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee then urged that since a return had been furnished by the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer committed an error in making a best judgment assessment under Section 18 (4) (d) of the Act. A similar submission had been made before the Tribunal, but was repelled. The Tribunal pointed out that in view of the fact found by it, it was apparent that the assessment could not properly be made on the basis of the accounts maintained by the assessee. A similar submission had been made before the Tribunal, but was repelled. The Tribunal pointed out that in view of the fact found by it, it was apparent that the assessment could not properly be made on the basis of the accounts maintained by the assessee. Since the return which was furnished by the assessee was based on the books of accounts maintained by it which were found to be unreliable, there was no option but to pass an order under Section 18 (4) (d) of the Act, which, inter alia, permitted passing of an order in such cases where the method of accounting employed by the assessee was such that in the opinion of the Commissioner, assessment could not properly be made on the basis thereof. The books of accounts which were seized on 6th December, 1975, as found by the Tribunal, clearly indicated that those books of accounts, the basis on which the return was furnished, could not be relied on. ( 7. ) IT was then urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that the estimate of sales at Rs. 7,50,000 was arbitrary. With regard to this submission, the Tribunal has pointed out that the assessee in its reply dated 31st March, 1979 had calculated the stock at Rs. 4,00,000 on the basis of stock of Rs. 80,000 per copy. So there were five copies of stock books of different suppliers and the Sales Tax Officer had estimated suppression of sales worth Rs. 1,50,000 with regard to each copy. According to the Tribunal even though the fact that there were five copies of the stock book thus stood admitted by the assessee three of such copies were not produced by the assessee and that in these circumstances the Sales Tax Officer was justified in estimating the stock at Rs. 1,50,000 for each of the book. Moreover when an order of best judgment assessment is passed some amount of speculation is inevitable because in the very nature of things, it is not possible to arrive at a mathematical figure to determine the amount of turnover in cases where there is suppression established on the basis of material on record. For the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to take the view that the amount arrived at by the Sales Tax Officer is excessive. ( 8. For the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to take the view that the amount arrived at by the Sales Tax Officer is excessive. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the assessee then urged that the assessee having made the disclosure in pursuance of the voluntary disclosure scheme should not have been penalised with the best judgment assessment. Suffice it to say, so far as this submission is concerned, as has been pointed out by the Tribunal, that the raid in the business premises of the assessee resulting into seizure of account books was made on 6th December, 1975, whereas the disclosure under the voluntary disclosure scheme was made by the assessee on 8th December, 1975. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the voluntary disclosure having been made two days after the raid, the seizure of the books could not be said to have resulted because of the voluntary disclosure. ( 9. ) LASTLY it was urged by the learned counsel for the assessee that the amount of penalty was excessive. A similar submission made before the Tribunal was repelled by pointing out that considering the quantum of suppression the amount of penalty was reasonable and there was no justification for interfering with that order. In this connection the Tribunal has further pointed out that a proper notice in form XVI was served on the assessee on 15th February, 1979 and the assessee had filed its reply on 28th February, 1979 and it is only thereafter that the order of penalty was passed. ( 10. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, all the six questions which have been stated above are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.