JUDGMENT U. L. BHAT, C.J. - This is an application filed by the assessee under section 44(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, seeking direction to the Board of Revenue to state the case and refer the questions of law to the High Court. We have heard both sides. The questions of law alleged to be arising are : (a) Whether on the material on record, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the turnover, which was not accounted for in the books of accounts, was Rs. 1,80,000 ? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, material and evidence on record, there is warrant in law to hold that the estimate of Rs. 1,80,000 of unaccounted turnover was legal and sound ? (c) That the ratio of the decision of Esufali's case was correctly applied by the Board of Revenue ? (d) Whether the estimate of turnover can be said to be arbitrary, excessive and without any basis and material on record ? (e) Whether the imposition of penalty under section 17(3) at Rs. 1,000 and under rule 69A at Rs. 70 was justified and legal ? 2. The accounting year in question is from Diwali 1977 to Diwali 1978, i.e., November 11, 1977 to October 31, 1978. The petitioner is a manufacturer and seller of pulses. It appears that the petitioner effects sale through brokers. On February 14, 1978, flying squad attached to the Sales Tax Department conducted raid in the premises of the petitioner and traced out some vouchers issued to the brokers during the period of five days. The vouchers showed payment of total brokerage amount of Rs. 45,811. But these transactions were not reflected in accounts. The petitioner contended that brokerage amount of Rs. 45,811 was paid in the light of certain contracts entered into between the petitioner and brokers but subsequently contracts were cancelled and therefore, actually the transactions did not go through. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept this explanation and arrived at best of judgment assessment by adding Rs. 1,80,000 to the total turnover. This was done on the basis that there was suppression of transactions of the value of Rs. 30,000 for a period of two months, which should be slightly less than the amount covered by the brokerage vouchers. 1,80,000 to the total turnover. This was done on the basis that there was suppression of transactions of the value of Rs. 30,000 for a period of two months, which should be slightly less than the amount covered by the brokerage vouchers. The appeal and further appeal filed by the assessee were dismissed and the application for reference was also dismissed. Hence, this application. 3. There is no dispute that the transactions covered by the brokerage vouchers seized by the flying squad were not reflected in the accounts. The petitioner's explanation that those transactions did not go through as the contracts were cancelled subsequently was not accepted by any of the statutory authorities. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no rational basis for the best of judgment assessment or the addition made by the Sales Tax Officer. Learned counsel points out that for the period of three months and three days of the year preceding the raid, the transactions which were not accounted for were only of the value of Rs. 45,811 and it would not be reasonable on the part of the Sales Tax Officer to believe that even after the raid, there were similar suppression of transactions in the account books. In this connection, our attention is invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in Esufali's case [1973] 32 STC 77. That was the case of reassessment on the discovery of a bill book for a period of 90 days in September of the year 1960. Transactions worth Rs. 31,171.28 covered by the bill book were not reflected in the accounts. In reassessment proceedings, a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs was added for the accounting year. This was challenged as arbitrary. The Supreme Court pointed out that once a conclusion is arrived at that no reliance can be placed on the accounts maintained by the assessee, the officer may proceed to assess on the basis of best judgment taking assistance from the accounts and other information gathered by him and the surrounding circumstances. The court commented on the conduct of the assessee in denying the bill book and stating that he had nothing to do with the bill book and subsequently admitting that the bill book reflects dealing outside the accounts. The Supreme Court observed : "........... The court commented on the conduct of the assessee in denying the bill book and stating that he had nothing to do with the bill book and subsequently admitting that the bill book reflects dealing outside the accounts. The Supreme Court observed : "........... The assessee has neither pleaded nor established any justifiable reason for not entering in his accounts the dealings noted in the bill book seized. It is obvious that he was maintaining false accounts to evade payment of sales tax. In such a situation, it was not possible for the sales Tax Officer to find out precisely the turnover suppressed. He could only make an estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the material before him. So long as the estimate made by him is not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the same cannot be questioned. In the very nature of things the estimate made may be an over-estimate or an under-estimate. But that is no ground for interfering with his 'best judgment'. It is true that the basis adopted by the officer should be relevant to the estimate made ................. The assessee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own illegal acts. It was his duty to place all facts truthfully before the assessing authority. If he fails to do his duty, he cannot be allowed to call upon the assessing authority to prove conclusively what turnover he has suppressed. That fact must be within his personal knowledge. Hence the burden of proving the fact is on him. No circumstance has been placed before the assessing authority to show that the assessee's dealings during September 1, 1960, to September 19, 1960, outside his accounts were due to some exceptional circumstance or that they were proportionately more than his dealings outside his accounts during the remaining periods ........ If the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bona fide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial .......... The High Court could not substitute its 'best judgment' for that of the assessing authority. In the case of 'best judgment' assessments, the courts will have to first see whether the accounts maintained by the assessee were rightly rejected as unreliable .......... The High Court could not substitute its 'best judgment' for that of the assessing authority. In the case of 'best judgment' assessments, the courts will have to first see whether the accounts maintained by the assessee were rightly rejected as unreliable .......... If the basis adopted is held to be a relevant basis even though the courts may think that it is not the most appropriate basis, the estimate made by the assessing authority cannot be disturbed ......... The basis adopted by the Sales Tax Officer was a relevant one whether it was the most appropriate or not." 5. Examining the facts in the light of above principles, it is clear that the Sales Tax Officer has adopted relevant basis for the purpose of arriving at his best judgment. The burden was on the assessee to show that during the remaining period, the transactions were not as high as during the period covered by the brokerage vouchers. The decision was arrived at on mere appreciation of facts and material circumstances, and we do not agree that any question of law, as suggested, arises for consideration. The application is dismissed but without cost. Application dismissed.