JUDGMENT A. PASAYAT, J. - At the instance of the assessee-dealer, the following questions have been referred to this Court for adjudication under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified to hold that from the statement of the dealer dated July 20, 1978, purchase suppression of an amount of Rs. 1,54,603 is established in view of the admission of the dealer made therein ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, was justified to enhance the gross turnover returned by Rs. 2,50,000 on the basis of the abovementioned statement of the dealer alone without any materials adduced by the State (Revenue) to establish the purchase suppression in question in a proceeding under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act ?" 2. The background facts are that for the assessment year 1972-73, assessment was completed under section 12(4) of the Act. At the time of such assessment, the gross turnover returned at Rs. 1,99,513.53 was accepted. Subsequently on the basis of a report received from the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Vigilance Wing, indicating purchase suppression, a proceeding under section 12(8) of the Act was initiated. The report was to the effect that during inspection of the business premises of the dealer by the officials of the Vigilance Wing, the physical stock of fertilizer exhibited for sale was verified and in the books of account maintained discrepancies were noticed. Certain other loose sheets of papers and one diary were also seized. Seizure list was prepared and signature of Sudam Dakua, a part-time clerk, who was present at the time of inspection, was obtained on the same. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to him. On scrutiny of the slips and the diary, it was noticed that the assessee had purchased fertilizer worth Rs. 3,35,576.70 during the period from December 19, 1972 to January 1, 1973, but the same was not reflected in the books of account and was suppressed. On August 25, 1973, the assessee-dealer himself made a statement in writing before the reporting officer, admitting that the slips and the diary were seized from his business premises and they related to his business transactions. On August 25, 1973, the assessee-dealer himself made a statement in writing before the reporting officer, admitting that the slips and the diary were seized from his business premises and they related to his business transactions. Subsequently he resiled from the stand and stated that the signatures were obtained under threat and the seized documents did not relate to his business activities. This plea was not accepted by the assessing officer and the reassessment was completed enhancing the gross turnover returned by Rs. 6,72,000, which resulted in demand of extra tax, and penalty of Rs. 3,000 under section 12(8) was levied. In appeal, before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur Range, Berhampur, the assessee, inter alia, submitted that the suppression that can be culled out from the seized documents was Rs. 1,54,403.20, and therefore, the enhancement made was not justified. This found favour with the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. On fresh assessment pursuant to the order of remand, the assessing officer made enhancement of Rs. 2,00,000 over the returned figures. During the course of hearing of appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Berhampur Range, Berhampur, notice of enhancement was issued. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, enhancement at Rs. 6,50,000 in place of Rs. 2,00,000 was directed. In further appeal, the Tribunal reduced the enhancement to Rs. 2,50,000. Before the Tribunal it was urged on behalf of the assessee that no reliance should have been placed on the statement made on July 20, 1978, before the assessing officer, in view of the various petitions filed and statements made at different times. The Tribunal held that the suppression to the extent of Rs. 1,54,403.20 was accepted as would be evident from the statement made before the Assistant Commissioner during hearing of the first appeal. He, however, considered the enhancement to be unreasonable and reduced it as aforestated. On being moved under section 24(1) of the Act, reference has been made to this Court for adjudication of the two questions. 3. The first question relates to reliance of the Tribunal on the statement dated July 20, 1978. The statement made by the assessee reads as follows : "......... In the first appeal stage I have stated before the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner that the total calculation of suppression should be Rs. 1,54,603.20 but not Rs. 3. The first question relates to reliance of the Tribunal on the statement dated July 20, 1978. The statement made by the assessee reads as follows : "......... In the first appeal stage I have stated before the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner that the total calculation of suppression should be Rs. 1,54,603.20 but not Rs. 3,35,576.70 as calculated by the assessing officer. This I have stated on the basis of the notings in the papers at pages 11 to 14 in the file obtained from Sri Sudam Dakua on August 10, 1973." The Tribunal relied on this statement to hold that there was admission before the Assistant Commissioner to the effect that the suppression was in the neighbour-hood of Rs. 1,54,000. The assessee himself had made a detailed statement on August 25, 1973, accepting that the seized papers related to his business transactions. The Tribunal without any plausible material being brought on record, Came to doubt the authenticity of the statement in view of subsequent statements made. Merely because criminal cases were instituted and the assessee was detained under the provisions of Maintenance of Internal Security Act, there is no scope for conclusion that the statement was obtained under duress. A person who asserts that the contents of an earlier statement made are not correct has to prove the same. Merely taking a plea to that effect is not sufficient. Be that as it may, we find that the assessee has accepted at different stages that the suppression was Rs. 1,54,000. In the absence of any challenge by the assessee at any stage to the correctness of the observation made by the Assistant Commissioner that he had accepted the suppression to be in relation to his business, it was not open to take a varying stand at a subsequent stage. If the suppression did not relate to the assessee's business, it is not explained as to why the quantification was made by him. His challenge would have been simply that the documents seized did not relate to his business. The conclusions of the Tribunal were based on inferences from factual aspects. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in terming the question to be question of law. We, therefore, decline to answer the question holding that the question being one of fact, no answer need be given. 4. The conclusions of the Tribunal were based on inferences from factual aspects. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in terming the question to be question of law. We, therefore, decline to answer the question holding that the question being one of fact, no answer need be given. 4. So far as the second question is concerned, justification for enhancement on the basis of the statement of the assessee is dependent on the question whether a best judgment assessment can be made in a proceeding under section 12(8). The question is also terminologically inappropriate. The Tribunal considered various aspects to sustain enhancement of Rs. 2,50,000. In essence the question as posed is whether enhancement should be restricted to the amount of suppression detected. Sequentially, the question is whether there can be best judgment assessment while making assessment under section 12(8) of the Act. We reframe the question accordingly, as follows : "Whether there can be best judgment assessment while making assessment under section 12(8) of the Act; and whether on the facts of the case, the;Tribunal was justified in sustaining enhancement of Rs. 2,50,000 ?" For answer to this question it is necessary to refer to decisions of this Court in [1973] 32 STC 98 (State of Orissa v. Durgadutta Modal and [1975] 35 STC 335 (New Orissa Traders v. State of Orissa). In both the cases the conclusions were to the effect that in a proceeding under section 12(8) the assessing officer is entitled to make a best judgment assessment, and he need not confine his assessment to the exact escaped turnover detected. But to support the estimate, materials must be found and indicated. It is open to the assessing officer to refer to the nature of the trade, the conduct of the assessee and the special feature in the business which makes suppression more convenient. In every best judgment assessment, there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness and guess-work. An obligation, however, is cast on the assessing officer to work out an honest estimate. He is to take note of assessee's past records, local reputation, opportunities of making clandestine transactions, limitation of the business, nature of the business carried on and such other factors. 5. Section 12 of the Act deals with assessment. The assessing officer may accept the returned figures under section 12(1). He is to take note of assessee's past records, local reputation, opportunities of making clandestine transactions, limitation of the business, nature of the business carried on and such other factors. 5. Section 12 of the Act deals with assessment. The assessing officer may accept the returned figures under section 12(1). Where the assessing officer is not satisfied about the correctness and completeness of the return furnished, without the presence of the dealer, he shall require production of evidence in support of the return. On production of evidence, assessment of amount of tax due shall be made under section 12(2). If the dealer fails to comply with the requisitlon of the assessing officer, the assessing officer shall assess the amount of tax due, to the best of his judgment under section 12(3). If a dealer has not furnished the returns within prescribed time, the assessing officer after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer. If a dealer liable to be registered under the Act has failed to do so without sufficient cause, the assessing officer shall call for a return, and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess to the best of his judgment under section 12(5), the amount of tax if any due and penalty. Similar procedure is prescribed if turnover of a dealer has escaped assessment or there has been under-assessment under section 12(8). Best judgment assessment is not always enhancement assessment. It is significant to note that in section 12(4), 12(5) and 12(8), each one of which authorises best judgment assessment, the expression used is "the amount of tax, if any" But section 12(3) which deals with best judgment assessment in the event of failure to comply with the requisition of the assessing officer, the expression used is "amount of tax due" The terminological difference is not without significance. If the assessing officer on verification of the books of accounts, documents, and/or material evidence comes to a conclusion that the return furnished is correct, it is not impermissible to accept the turnovers returned under section 12(4) and 12(5) of the Act. It is not also impermissible to accept gross turnover returned while varying taxable turnover by application of appropriate tax rate. It is not also impermissible to accept gross turnover returned while varying taxable turnover by application of appropriate tax rate. If the books of account reflect the correct turnovers as indicated in the returns, there is no scope for enhancement. Similar view has been expressed by a Full Bench of this Court in Sri Prabhudayal Agrawalla v. Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (O.J.C. No. 914 of 1985 decided on September 18, 1991) [Reported in [1993] 88 STC 473 (Orissa) [FB]]. Where the assessing officer is of the view that the turnovers returned are not supportable by books of accounts, documents and/or material evidence, and no reliance can be placed thereon, the resort to best judgment assessment can be made. The scope and ambit of such assessment have been delineated afore. Where suppression for a short period is detected, it can form basis for enhancement for an entire assessment period. The nexus and foundational basis for such enhancement has to be indicated by the assessing officer. There may be cases where the enhancement may be restricted to quantum of suppression detected. One such case is where the entire secreted accounts for the whole of the relevant period is in the possession of the department. [See Bherodhan Jethmal (Private) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 26 STC 536 (Orissa)]. Merely because the expression "best of his judgment" has been used in section 12(4) and 12(5) of the Act, it is not inferable that enhancement has to be made. In best judgment assessment there is no mandate to enhance. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC), it has been clearly held that when the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained, he proceeds to assess on the basis of his "best judgment". Logically, where accounts can be relied upon, they may be accepted. The view of the Supreme Court that assessment based on books is not best judgment was expressed in a different context. This is apparent from the conclusion that when no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained, then best judgment assessment is called for. Therefore, there is no statutory mandate that whenever the assessment is under section 12(4) or 12(5) there has to be enhancement, even when accounts maintained are correct. This is apparent from the conclusion that when no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained, then best judgment assessment is called for. Therefore, there is no statutory mandate that whenever the assessment is under section 12(4) or 12(5) there has to be enhancement, even when accounts maintained are correct. In such assessment, the books of account are not to be discarded altogether. In fact the Supreme Court has clearly indicated that while making best judgment assessment, the assessing officer may take such assistance as the accounts maintained by the assessee may afford. 6. In the instant case, the suppression detected covered a period of four months. Therefore, the estimate does not appear to be unreasonable and merely because the enhancement was made with reference to the statement of the assessee it cannot be said that there was no material to justify enhancement. The Tribunal has indicated the period of suppression, and magnitude of purchase suppression to justify the enhancement. These are essentially conclusions on facts. The answer to the first limb of second question is that there can be best judgment assessment and enhancement while making assessment under section 12(8) of the Act. So far as the second limb is concerned, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the enhancement of Rs. 2,50,000 on the facts as enumerated above. The reframed second question is answered accordingly. 7. The questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. S. K. MOHANTY, J. - I agree.