M. C. AGARWAL, J. These two revision petitions under section 11 of the U. P. Trade Tax Act are directed against a common order dated September 19, 1996, passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Agra, whereby it dismissed the dealers second appeals for assessment year 1985-86 and 1988-89. 2. I have heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, for the respondent. 3. The revisionist is a dealer in vanaspati ghee. Its head office and factory is at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. In the year 1985-86 it set up a sales depots at Agra for selling its vegetable ghee at Agra. It transferred its stock to the said depot from where the sales were effected. 4. For assessment year 1985-86 it returned a turnover of Rs. 34,39,423. The assessing officer took the view that the invoice price at which the goods were transferred to the Agra depot showed the value of the goods at Rs. 36,04,227. In addition there were certain expenses on transport, storage, etc. , and, therefore, according to him the sale price could not be Rs. 34,39,423. He estimated the turnover at Rs. 50,00,000. On appeal the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the turnover to Rs. 38,00,000 and the Tribunal affirmed the turnover as reduced. 5. For assessment year 1988-89 the dealer had returned its turnover at Rs. 39,62,336 against the invoice value at Rs. 39,48,350 and for similar reasons the assessing officer determined the turnover at Rs. 45,00,000. It was reduced to Rs. 42,00,000 by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). The Tribunal has affirmed the same. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist took me through the orders of the authorities below to point out that the dealers books of accounts have not been rejected and no adverse circumstance whatsoever was found against the assessee and, therefore, the enhancement in the turnover was illegal. It was also pointed out that the depot at Agra had not purchased the goods and what was shown in the invoice was the approximate value which cannot be equated with purchase price and no case of under-invoicing having been directed. There was no reason not to accept the returned turnover. He placed reliance on Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow v. Saurashtra Chemicals [1996] 100 STC 448 (All.); 1996 UPTC 178. There was no reason not to accept the returned turnover. He placed reliance on Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow v. Saurashtra Chemicals [1996] 100 STC 448 (All.); 1996 UPTC 178. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, repeated the view taken by the authorities below and asserted that the enhancement in the turnover was justified. A reading of the order of the Tribunal would show that the books of accounts had been regularly maintained by the dealer and no defects therein was noticed. In fact the books of accounts have not been rejected nor is there any observation that they were unreliable. No case of under-invoicing was even attempted to be made out. There is nothing to show that in fact the dealer suffered a loss in this business. There is no mention anywhere that the price at which the dealer claims to have sold its goods was lower than the prevailing market price. Admittedly, the value mentioned in the pro forma invoice was not the purchase price of the goods. It was only the approximate value of the goods or the value at which the dealer expected the goods to be sold. The members of the Tribunal do not seem to be capable of even appreciating this and they have mentioned the figure as the purchase price. 7. It is settled law that it is not the business of the taxing officers to guide the businessman about the manner in which the latter should conduct his business. A businessmen is not expected to earn more so as to able to pay higher income-tax nor can the Sales Tax Officer force a trader to sell his goods at a particular price. It is for the dealer to chose at what price he will sell the goods and how much of the goods he will sell and how much he will consume for himself or donate. If the assessing officer feels that a particular trader is behaving in an manner which is different from the other traders in the line the only course open to him is to raise an eye of suspicion and make an investigation. But if he does not investigate or if after investigation he does not find anything adverse to the assessee he cannot reject the dealers results simply on suspicion or conjecture. But if he does not investigate or if after investigation he does not find anything adverse to the assessee he cannot reject the dealers results simply on suspicion or conjecture. Such views have been expressed by the courts for a long time and the members of the Tribunal must have known this basic concept of tax jurisprudence. Such view were recently repeated by this Court in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals [1996] 100 STC 448. It is painful that a higher judicial body like the Sales Tax Tribunal should uphold such perverse enhancement in the turnover. 8. The approach of the Tribunal and its conclusions are patently illegal and deserve to be reversed. 9. The revision petitions are allowed with costs that I assess at Rs. 1,500 in each of the revisions and Tribunals order dated September 19, 1996 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the revisionists second appeal Nos. 67 of 1996 and 23 of 1995 for assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89 stand allowed and the dealers declared turnover is accepted. The Tribunal shall pass an order in the aforesaid appeals in consonance with this judgment. Petitions allowed. .