JUDGMENT A. R. TIWARI, J. - At the instance of the applicant-department, the Tribunal (Board of Revenue) has referred, on the application registered as RA No. 94-V/88 against the order dated August 16, 1988 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 95-V/86, the undernoted question of law under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") read with section 13 of the Entry Tax Act, for our opinion : "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was right in holding in law that best judgment assessment under section 18(4) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, does not necessarily mean enhancement in turnover, in view of the provisions of rule 33(3) made thereunder ?" 2. Facts lie in a narrow compass : The non-applicant deals in clothes, bhangar and utensils, etc. For the period from November 16, 1982 to November 4, 1983, the assessment order was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Betul. The details of the entries in the return filed by the non-applicant were found incorrect, tax calculation chart was also found incorrect. While the total turnover was shown in the return at Rs. 12,77,858.85, the books of accounts showed total turnover at Rs. 12,43,694.69. The difference in the return and the books of accounts was due to the fact that certain purchases like utensils, bhangar, etc., were shown in the return after deductions. The returns were filed very late. Stock form was also not filed. Owing to this position, the turnover was determined at Rs. 12,45,500 in best judgment assessment. The total purchases liable to entry tax were determined at Rs. 10,69,500. This was assessed to entry tax at 2 per cent. The non-applicant claimed claimed tax-free deduction of niwar which was disallowed. Penalties were also imposed. The non-applicant filed appeal before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Chhindwara, which was registered as No. 20/B/ET/85. The non-applicant was unsuccessful. It then, filed Appeal No. 95-V/86 before the Tribunal. The appeal was partly allowed on August 16, 1988. The case was remanded to the assessing officer for fresh assessment. The total turnover was fixed at Rs. 12,43,694.69 as shown in the books of accounts. The non-applicant was unsuccessful. It then, filed Appeal No. 95-V/86 before the Tribunal. The appeal was partly allowed on August 16, 1988. The case was remanded to the assessing officer for fresh assessment. The total turnover was fixed at Rs. 12,43,694.69 as shown in the books of accounts. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the application registered as No. 94-V/88 under section 44(1) of the Act read with section 13 of the Entry Tax Act seeking statement of the case and reference of the question. On this application, the Tribunal referred the aforesaid question of law. 3. We have heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the applicant-department. None appeared for the non-applicant. 4. Shri Mathur, submitted that best judgment assessment under section 18(4) of the Act should necessarily mean enhancement in turnover in view of the provisions of rule 33(3) made under the aforesaid Act. 5. Rule 33(3) reads as under : "In making an assessment to the best of his judgment under sub-section (4), (6) or (7) of section 18, the assessing authority shall, as far as practicable, have due regard to the extent of the business carried on by the dealer, the surrounding circumstances and all other matters which may be of assistance in arriving at a fair and proper estimate of the taxable turnover of the dealer." 6. Section 18(4) of the Act reads as under : "If a registered dealer - (a) has not furnished returns in respect of any period by the prescribed date, or (b) has knowingly furnished incomplete or incorrect returns for any period, or (c) having furnished such returns fails to comply with any of the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2), or (d) has not maintained any accounts or the accounts maintained by him are not in accordance with provisions of sub-section (1) of section 26 or has not regularly employed any method of accounting if the method employed is such that in the opinion of the Commissioner assessment cannot properly be made on the basis thereof, the Commissioner shall on the prescribed manner assess the dealer to the best of his judgment." 7. In [1971] 27 STC 388 (MP); (1971) 4 VKN 113 (Bhagwandas Khandelwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) that best judgment assessment must be bona fide assessment and must be based on some material which could reasonably lead to the conclusion arrived at. 8. In [1971] 27 STC 388 (MP); (1971) 4 VKN 113 (Bhagwandas Khandelwal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax) that best judgment assessment must be bona fide assessment and must be based on some material which could reasonably lead to the conclusion arrived at. 8. The Tribunal found as an indisputed fact that the non-applicant maintained regular books of accounts. It is also noticed that the assessing officer did not reject the books of accounts maintained by the non-applicant. The Tribunal concluded as under : "It is not disputed that the appellant maintains regular books of accounts. It is not disputed that the assessing officer did not reject the books of accounts maintained by the appellant. In such circumstance where regular books are maintained and where books are not rejected, best judgment assessment resulting in enhancement in the turnover is not justified as decided in the case of Nagri Chemical and Wire Product, Bhilai." 9. The object and purpose of best judgment assessment is to arrive at a fair and proper estimate of the turnover of the dealer. The best judgment assessment does not necessarily mean enhancement in turnover. When the books of accounts were not found rejectable, those books could form the basis of best judgment assessment. It is thus, not necessary that this exercise must result in enhancement in turnover. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was right in holding that best judgment assessment under section 18(4) of the Act does not necessarily mean enhancement in turnover in view of the provisions contained in rule 33(3) as quoted above. The aforesaid rule itself manifests that the estimate of taxable turnover of the dealer should be fair and proper. The best judgment assessment cannot be arbitrary and has to appear to be bona fide and fair and proper. The question of enhancement is not the essential ingredient. 11. It is not contended before us that the assessment reached was not capable of being categorised as fair and proper estimate. That being so, we take the view that the Tribunal was justified. 12. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the applicant-department. 13. This reference application is thus, decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. 14. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal immediately. Reference answered in the affirmative.