JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by V. V. KAMAT, J. - The petitioner-assessee who is a dealer in diesel and petrol of Indian Oil Corporation carrying on business at Thalassery has approached this Court under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, with regard to resort to best judgment assessment by the assessing authority. 2. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H. M. Esufali H. M. Abdulali) it is to be borne in mind that it is the assessing authority that is the best judge of the situation and precisely it is his best judgment and not anyone else's. This emphasis has to be more than remembered by this Court that it cannot substitute its best judgment for that of the assessing authority. In regard to resort to best judgment in estimating any escaped turnover, it is to be appreciated that it is inevitable that there is some guess-work. The assessing authority, while making the best judgment assessment, has to arrive at the conclusion without any bias and on an approach on rational basis. There should be total absence of any caprice and vindictiveness. If the estimate is found showing total absence of caprice and vindictiveness and is seen to have been arrived at in a bona fide manner, even the fact that there is no good proof in support of the estimate would pale into insignificance. The best judgment, if not found arbitrary and if found to have reasonable nexus with the facts discovered, it does not become liable for scrutiny under the provisions of section 41 of the Act. It has also to be appreciated in the context in regard to the exercise of best judgment that reasonably the officer does not have the required material before him so that he can arithmetically arrive at the exact turnover suppressed and thus is left to the inevitability of the situation in resorting to the process of estimation in regard thereto. 3. 3. In other words if this Court, acting under section 41 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, finds absence of lack of fairness, lack of reasonableness accompanied by aspects of any kind of bias in regard to the process in arriving at the best judgment of the situation, then the situation would have to be appreciated as being governed beyond the limits of its judicial authority. 4. The necessary facts are traceable in the order of the assessing authority dated August 8, 1994. The proceeding relates to the assessment year 1992-93. During the year in question the petitioner-assessee filed return showing total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,98,59,285.98 and Rs. 3,352.40 respectively. Then on June 2, 1992, the place of business was inspected in a surprise visit by the Intelligence Officer, Kannur. As a result thereof, from a bill book bearing Nos. 14401 up to 15000 showing the book to have been used up to serial No. 14748 was seized. In the enquiry that followed it was revealed that during the period commencing on May 9, 1992 up to June 2, 1992, a period of 24 days' dealings were found not having been accounted for in regard thereto either in the day book or in the stock register. It showed that as far as high speed diesel is concerned, 14,293 litres and 16 litres of motor spirit were the transactions unaccounted for during the period of 24 days as stated above. 5. In addition thereto sale of high speed diesel to the tune of Rs. 10,408.78 was also detected attributable to one Sri T. V. Babu. This resulted in the rejection of the accounts of the petitioner-assessee and a process of reassessment as a result thereof. In the proceedings the assessing authority reached factual conclusions that the irregularities noticed by the Intelligence Officer as a result of the surprise check also exist in the books of accounts. The assessing officer has recorded further conclusion that even the inspection conducted disclosed deficit of 3,140 litres of high speed diesel and 2,386 litres of motor spirit. On examination of the material the assessing authority found actual suppression of Rs. 1,20,590 on high speed diesel and Rs. 42,325 in regard to motor spirit. 6. The assessing officer has recorded further conclusion that even the inspection conducted disclosed deficit of 3,140 litres of high speed diesel and 2,386 litres of motor spirit. On examination of the material the assessing authority found actual suppression of Rs. 1,20,590 on high speed diesel and Rs. 42,325 in regard to motor spirit. 6. With regard to these figures stated above the assessing authority resorted to best judgment assessment under section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, reaching the conclusion that the suppression which is found with regard to the period of 24 days coverable for the period of 2 months (May and June, 1992) would have to be understood as spreading over in a similar character for over the assessment year and as a consequence resorted to determine the probable omission and suppression to be six times the above respective figures. Thus with regard to high speed diesel the assessing authority found suppression to the tune of Rs. 7,23,540 and similarly with regard to motor spirit found probable omissions and suppressions to the tune of Rs. 2,53,950. In the process for the assessment year in question the taxable turnover was rounded off to Rs. 11,55,410 and ordered assessment accordingly. 7. Before the appellate authority (Additional Appellate Commissioner, Kannur) it was urged by the petitioner specifically by ground No. 4 that there is no justification for having six times as the estimated addition unless there is any pattern of suppression found on detection. It was urged that the resort to six times is the wild estimation being required to be struck down. 8. The appellate authority found from the record and confirmed the factual situation that the Intelligence Squad conducted a surprise inspection at the place of business of the appellant on June 2, 1992 and it revealed stock difference of 3,140 litres of high speed diesel and of 2,386 litres of motor spirit. The verification of the bill book relating to the period from May 9, 1992 up to June 2, 1992 was also confirmed, for consequent confirmation as regards non-accounting of 14,293 litres of high speed diesel and 16 litres of motor spirit in the books of accounts of the assessee. On facts the rejection of accounts was also confirmed with the reasons in support thereof based on the above material. 9. On facts the rejection of accounts was also confirmed with the reasons in support thereof based on the above material. 9. As regards the estimation, the aspect is considered by the appellate authority in the following manner : "With regard to estimation, the appellant has argued that there is no pattern of suppression since there was only one inspection during the year. Here again I disagree. The inspection on June 2, 1992, proved unaccounted sales of high speed diesel oil and petrol for the period May 9, 1992 to June 2, 1992 and also substantial stock difference in both. This clearly indicates a pattern of suppression practised by the appellant. But it is a fact that a part of the stock difference found on inspection is the result of unaccounted sales revealed from the sale bill book recovered. But while estimating the total suppression this has not been reckoned. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellants eligible for some relief in respect of the addition made by the assessing authority. I, therefore, direct the assessing authority to reduce the total addition to five times of the actual suppression worked out by the assessing authority in the order of assessment." It would be seen that the appellate authority found that while estimating the total suppression, there is no reckoning with regard to what was found on inspection and for the above reason the total addition was reduced to five times of the actual suppression worked out. As would be seen from the above quoted reasoning the appellate authority applied its mind and found out a mistake in calculation and thereby granted relief by way of reduction as stated above. 10. In further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kozhikode, the question was also considered, to conclude that all aspects highlighted would have to be termed as without substance. The Tribunal also took into consideration that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted relief while confirming the assessment in the main. 11. As stated at the outset it is not possible even to think of substituting our judgment because the position of law is crystal clear that the best judgment is of the assessing authority. The Tribunal also took into consideration that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner granted relief while confirming the assessment in the main. 11. As stated at the outset it is not possible even to think of substituting our judgment because the position of law is crystal clear that the best judgment is of the assessing authority. However, even on independently examining the question, there appears to be reasonable nexus, if the situation that is revealed as a result of the surprise inspection that during the period of 24 days, the situation is revealed as particularised above; consequences are not required to be left to imagination. In the orders it is also found that strenuous attempts on the part of those who deal in petroleum products thrive on a neat difference of 15 per cent as regards the levy of taxation when compared to the one at Mahe and the State of Kerala has been an open situation and is no longer a secret of a clandestine character. There is no material even in the nature of a whisper as regards lack of fairness and reasonableness or the presence of any material of bias and lack of bona fides. The appellate authority has carefully considered and modified the order as stated above. In this situation not only that it is not possible to interfere, taking into consideration the limits of our power, but even independently we do not find that there is any error with regard to the resort to estimation by a process of best judgment assessment. For the above reasons the tax revision case stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.