JUDGMENT This is an application under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for calling the reference from the Board of Revenue on following two questions which have been framed by the assessee which read as under : 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the best judgment assessment made by the assessing authority under section 18(4)(d) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, whereas the accounts have been maintained in accordance with the provisions of section 26 of the said M.P. General Sales Tax Act ? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders of the assessing authority and Tribunal are not arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice, whereas the estimation of gross profit rate on sales, on the basis of other saw mills, which are not similarly situated and circumstanced and without affording any opportunity to confront the case ? 2. The assessee-applicant is carrying on the business of purchase of timber logs and sale of sawn timber at Betul, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The assessment period is from November 1, 1980 to October 25, 1981. The assessee-applicant was assessed for the said period by the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated May 31, 1983 whereby the gross turnover was determined at Rs. 7,53,154 as against Rs. 6,70,562 shown and taxable turnover at Rs. 86,776 as against Rs. 5,933 shown. 3. Aggrieved against this order, appeal was filed by the applicant before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chhindwara, challenging the determination of the enhanced turnover. During the pendency of the appeal, the case was taken up in revision by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax on the ground that the order was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and required modification. In pursuance of this notice issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, the applicant filed reply but it was not satisfactory and therefore, the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax reserved the order of the assessing authority and held that the assessee has not kept the proper account regarding manufacturing and also did not keep the proper opening stock and has not kept the proper accounts resulting in loss of revenue. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner applied the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Krishna Saw Mills v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1983) 16 VKN 182, where the Lordships have held that when details of the extraction, sawn, manufacture were not maintained and the accounts are rejected, then a formula of 1 1/2 times of timber purchased is to be taken as justified for determining the turnover. Relying on this decision, the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax directed the Sales Tax Officer to effect the necessary recovery and take steps for penalty. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also preferred an appeal against the original assessment order, which was rejected. Then the assessee did not pursue that appeal and it had become infructuous. Therefore, he filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties, affirmed the order of the Additional Commissioner of Taxation. Second appeal was also preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the first Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax rejecting that the appeal was not pressed before the Board of Revenue. Hence, the assessee has approached this Court for calling a reference from the Tribunal on two aforesaid questions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Both the questions which have been framed are purely the questions of fact and no question of law is involved. The Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the application for making the reference on two aforesaid questions. The assessee has not kept the proper accounts. He was given opportunity to produce the record but he could not satisfactorily explain the position. The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax has rightly applied the ratio of Krishna Saw Mills' case (1983) 16 VKN 182. 6. Hence, we are of the opinion that no question of law is involved. Therefore, there is no merit in the application and the same is rejected. Application dismissed.