JUDGMENT B.N. AGRAWAL, J. This reference and Tax Case No. 145 of 1979 are being disposed of by this order as common questions have been referred therein to this Court for its opinion. In these two cases on reference being called by this Court the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna has referred the following questions of law to this Court for its opinion : (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal erred in law in holding that there was service of notice on the assessee ? (ii) Whether the estimate of the turnover had proper nexus with the materials on the record or was it arbitrary ? The short facts leading to these two references are that the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Patna received a written complaint from one Sheodeni Prasad alleging therein that three persons, namely, Judagi Sao (assessee in this reference) Ram Khelawan Sao (assessee in Tax Case No. 145 of 1979) and one Doman Sao were running business in foodgrains without getting themselves registered under the provisions of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the Act"). It was mentioned in the report that these three persons were carrying on business and were dealing in grains, potato, etc., but were evading payment of sales tax. It was mentioned that these persons were transporting rice for sale to different places and they were holding foodgrains licence. It was further stated that they were prosecuted under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. This petition was forwarded to the concerned Sales Tax Officer who entrusted the matter for enquiry to Assistant Superintendent of Sales Taxes of the area in question who made spot enquiry on August 27, 1970 and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Sales Tax on August 31, 1970. The enquiring officer upon the materials collected by him found that these three persons were carrying on business since 1964-65 in their residential premises. Thereafter the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax initiated a proceeding under section 37 of the Act against these three persons and notices were sent to them for production of documents but none of them appeared before the assessing officer. Subsequently on December 17, 1971 the assessing officer himself held local enquiry and gave his report on December 20, 1971. Thereafter the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax initiated a proceeding under section 37 of the Act against these three persons and notices were sent to them for production of documents but none of them appeared before the assessing officer. Subsequently on December 17, 1971 the assessing officer himself held local enquiry and gave his report on December 20, 1971. During the course of enquiry he examined the local choukidar and several other independent persons and on the basis of the materials collected during the course of enquiry the report was submitted. The assessing officer found in the report that these persons were carrying on business since 1965. Thereafter notices were sent again by the assessing officer through ordinary mode and thereafter under registered cover but the same was refused by these assessees. The registered cover was refused with the endorsement of the postal peon of refusal by the assessees. The assessing officer thereafter held another local enquiry on February 19, 1973 and during the course of this enquiry he also found that these persons were carrying on business since 1965. Since the assessee failed to appear in spite of service of notice through various modes the assessing officer made best judgment assessment on the basis of various enquiry reports. In the case of Judagi Sao the total turnover between January 31, 1965 and December 31, 1972, has been estimated to be Rs. 3,90,000 upon which tax of Rs. 14,500 has been assessed whereas Rs. 500 has been imposed as penalty. In the case of Ram Khelawan Sao the assessing officer has estimated the total turnover to be Rs. 6,38,000. Upon this turnover an amount of Rs. 23,900 has been assessed as the amount of sales tax and Rs. 1,100 has been imposed by way of penalty. The assessees took up the matter before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in revision by filing separate revision applications who after taking into consideration all the materials has refused to interfere with the order of assessment and dismissed the revision application. Against the rejection of the revision the matter was taken to the Tribunal by filing separate revision applications and the Tribunal has rejected the revision applications upholding the orders passed by the assessing officer and the revisional authority. Against the rejection of the revision the matter was taken to the Tribunal by filing separate revision applications and the Tribunal has rejected the revision applications upholding the orders passed by the assessing officer and the revisional authority. Thereafter the applications were filed for making reference to this Court but the same having been rejected the assessee moved this Court for calling for reference under section 33(2)(b) of the Act and the reference having been called by this Court the Tribunal has referred the question of law referred to above. The first question is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there was service of notice upon the assessee. From the assessment order it appears that on several occasions notices were sent to the assessees, but they avoided service of notices on all the occasions. Therefore, notices were sent under registered cover which were refused by the assessee. From the Tribunal's order it appears that since the assessees were avoiding service of notices the same were sent to them under registered cover which were refused by them. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the assessee before the revisional authority, i.e., the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes denying the service of notices upon them. The Tribunal rejected the stand of the assessees that notices were not served upon them and refused to place reliance upon the affidavit filed by them on the ground that according to the affidavit the assessees learnt about the assessment order for the first time from Mukhiya of the local Gram Panchayat but in support of this fact that they learnt from the Mukhiya no certificate of the Mukhiya was produced nor any supporting affidavit by him was filed. Apart from this the Tribunal after taking into consideration the other materials has come to the conclusion that notices were duly served upon the assessees. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessees submitted that the postal peon's report does not show as to who had refused to accept the notices whether the assessees or some persons on their behalf. It has been submitted that since the postal peon's report does not show that the addressees had refused to accept the notices it cannot be said that there was valid service. It has been submitted that since the postal peon's report does not show that the addressees had refused to accept the notices it cannot be said that there was valid service. In support of this contention learned counsel has placed reliance on two decisions in the cases of Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Mukat Lal Om Prakash [1973] 31 STC 532 (All.) and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Pachipulusu Venkata Subba Rao and Co. [1970] 26 STC 27 (AP). In my view, it is not necessary to refer to these judgments as in these references the postal peon has made endorsements that the assessees refused to accept the notices. Therefore these decisions can be of no avail to the assessees. However from the judgments of the Tribunal it appears that the finding of the Tribunal that notices were duly served upon these assessees is not based merely upon the service of the notices by registered post but through other mode also and that also on several occasions. In my view the finding regarding service of notices recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact and it has not committed any error in recording the same. In relation to the second question learned counsel submitted that the order of assessment has been passed without any material. It is well-settled that best judgment assessment can be made but for that there must be materials. From the orders of the Tribunal and the assessing officer it appears that the order of assessment has been passed upon the information collected by the assessing officer under three different reports and the officers who have submitted the reports have made due enquiry and examined various persons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the best judgment assessment has been made without any material on the record. In my view, the Tribunal has not committed any error in deciding this question as well. For the foregoing reasons question No. 1 is answered in the negative and question No. 2 in the affirmative, i.e., both the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessees. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. I agree. Question No. 1 answered in the negative. Question No. 2 answered in the affirmative.