ORDER Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, J. - This writ petition is filed against the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dated April 25, 2003 in T.C. (R) No. 149 of 1999 confirming the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The petitioner herein is an assessee on the file of the third respondent herein. The petitioner carries on the business as a hotelier. In the return filed for the assessment year 1993-94, the petitioner reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 13,21,125. The assessing authority, third respondent herein, made a best of judgment assessment based on the results obtained in an inspection conducted on April 1, 1993, determining the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 20,93,957. The inspection results showed the following : (i) Carbon copies of pay-in-slips for the period from April 1, 1993 to March 3, 1994 was not preserved and produced. (ii) Purchase of milk was not supported by bought vouchers. (iii) Purchase of kerosene and groundnut was not supported by purchase bills. The assessing authority rejected the book results, determined the turnover for the assessment year 1993-94 and made an addition of Rs. 6,03,043 to the turnover declared at Rs. 13,86,328 based on the sales noticed on inspection at Rs. 6,083.70. Apart from this, the third respondent also made further addition to the turnover as regards tax element of Rs. 83,180 included in the sales turnover, but, excluded the same while filing the return and claimed as exemption. The third respondent added a sum of Rs. 19,461 under section 7A with 10 per cent gross profit thereon, penalty at Rs. 58,509 under section 12(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner sustained the addition to the turnover to the extent of 25 per cent on the estimated sales and thus re-determined the addition to the turnover at Rs. 1,63,760. He however confirmed the turnover under section 7A as well as on the claim of exemption at Rs. 83,180. Correspondingly, the appellate authority modified the penalty in tune with the relief granted. Aggrieved by the addition sustained, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred an enhancement petition seeking restoration of the order of the assessing authority. 83,180. Correspondingly, the appellate authority modified the penalty in tune with the relief granted. Aggrieved by the addition sustained, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue also preferred an enhancement petition seeking restoration of the order of the assessing authority. By order dated August 25, 1998, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal passed an order setting aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the turnover as estimated by the assessing authority by retaining the sales suppression as determined by the assessing officer. Thus the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal and allowed the enhancement. On the question of the addition made under section 7A, the Tribunal deleted the assessment on kerosene under section 7A. However, it confirmed the addition under other items with gross profit at 10 per cent. The Tribunal further confirmed the turnover Rs. 83,180 being the difference of turnover wrongly deducted claiming exemption of tax. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal directed the imposition of penalty on the basis of the turnover upheld and restored in the execution petition. The aggrieved assessee filed a tax case before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal challenging the order of the Tribunal. By order dated April 25, 2003 in T.C. (R.) No. 149 of 1999, the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal dismissed the appeal; thereby confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Challenging the said order, the assessee has preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the addition on the basis of the results on single day sales, is totally erroneous and is not sustainable, in the light of the decision reported in [2006] 147 STC 111 (Mad) (State of Tamil Nadu v. New Kamaliya Hotel). The learned counsel also submitted that there cannot be a multiplier adopted to presume that the sales on the 300 odd days would be uniform. He also placed reliance on the decision in T.C. No. 84 of 2000 dated April 11, 2000 as well as T.C. (R.) No. 149 of 1999 dated April 25, 2003 and the decision reported in [1989] 10 SISTC 77 (Sellakumar Talkies v. Board of Revenue (CT), Madras) in support of his contention that the suppression noticed on one day could not lead to an addition on presumption that everyday throughout the year would be uniform. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal confirming the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the enhancement petition filed by the Revenue and dismissing the appeal by the assessee. The learned Special Government Pleader supported the order of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal that there are no grounds to disturb the view of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal and particularly no error could be pointed out for exercising the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in [1993] 91 STC 36 (AP) (New Dwaraka Lunch Home v. State of Andhra Pradesh) that in the context of the materials seized, the estimation was sustainable based on the one day sales. Heard counsel for both sides. A perusal of the order of assessment shows that the assessment was based purely on the sale results on the date of inspection. Except the allegations that the petitioner has not preserved and produced the carbon copies of the pay-in-slips for the period April 1, 1993 to March 3, 1994, no allegations were made either as to the maintenance of the accounts or on sales suppression and purchase omission supported by valid materials. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner viewed that the additions were made purely on the basis of experimental study by taking the difference as suppression, that the variation with the book sales were not huge to warrant an addition for the entire year. The appellate authority viewed that the pay-in-slips could not be preserved as they were bit papers only. Hence considering the facts, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner fixed the turnover added at 25 per cent of the estimation made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal however referred to the decision in the case of a similar assessee and distinguished the same that the assessee could not let in satisfactory explanation for the variation in the sales noted on the inspection day. Hence, following the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in T.C. No. 83 of 1998, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal restored the orders of the assessing officer. Hence, following the decision of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal in T.C. No. 83 of 1998, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal restored the orders of the assessing officer. The Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal rejected the reliance placed on the decisions of this court reported in [1966] 17 STC 465 (SC) (State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty) and [1989] 10 SISTC 77 [Sellakumar Talkies v. Board of Revenue (CT), Madras] and confirmed the orders of the Tribunal. A perusal of the decision reported in [2006] 147 STC 111 (Mad) (State of Tamil Nadu v. New Kamaliya Hotel) shows that the assessment therein was based on the inspection results as on one day as well as on the record recovered to confirm the estimation made therein. This court held that "mere one day sales could not be attributed to estimate the whole year without considering the festival season, rainy season and other calamities". This court also pointed out that the Tribunal deleted the addition made based on one day sales; that the sales may differ from auspicious day and inauspicious day. While there cannot be any difference of opinion that sales may not be uniform throughout the year, yet, estimation of turnover depends on variety of factors. If the results of one day sales is supported by other materials like non-maintenance of stock account or regular maintenance account or defective incomplete accounts, other incriminating materials available to support such a finding then, no exception could be taken to an estimation based on one day sales results. Even in the decision reported in [1973] 32 STC 77 (SC) (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. H. M. Esufali, H. M. Abdulali), the apex court held that in estimating any escaped turnover, it is inevitable that there is some guess work. 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 overestimate or an underestimate. But that is no ground for interfering with his "best judgment". So long as there is a reasonable basis provided for by the materials seized to the estimation made and the materials seized warrant an estimate of the escaped turnover a best assessment judgment as such cannot be disturbed. But that is no ground for interfering with his "best judgment". So long as there is a reasonable basis provided for by the materials seized to the estimation made and the materials seized warrant an estimate of the escaped turnover a best assessment judgment as such cannot be disturbed. Hence, the relevancy of materials and the nexus of the same to form a basis carry significance in the matter of assessing the correctness of the estimate made. Refer - [2004] 134 STC 170 (Karn) (Kathyayini Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) and [2004] 135 STC 77 (SC) (Kathyayini Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes). In the case on hand, a perusal of the orders of the authorities below shows that except for the non-preserving of the carbon copies of pay-in-slips, and box vouchers supporting the purchase of milk, kerosene and groundnut, no other defect is pointed out to justify an estimation on the basis of the one day sales. We do not find any material in the order of the Tribunal to support its view while confirming the view of the order of the assessing authority. The question arises what could be correct turnover for the purpose of assessment. The order of the authorities below shows that on the date of inspection, the total turnover was Rs. 6,083.70. The assessment order does not speak on any other materials and the defects about accounts which are to be maintained statutorily to support his view on the estimation for the whole year that the sales figures on the particular date of inspection hence, could not be compared with reference to sales on the other days for want of paying slips for the period falling under this assessment year. Taking note of the same and in the absence of any materials to justify an estimation as had been done by the officer and confirmed by the Tribunal, and the possibility of fluctuations in the sales, we feel that an estimation 1/4th as had been adopted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner fixing the sales suppression at Rs. 1,60,760 would meet the ends of justice. As regards the other turnover included and sustained by the authorities below, we do not find any ground to disturb the same. 1,60,760 would meet the ends of justice. As regards the other turnover included and sustained by the authorities below, we do not find any ground to disturb the same. In the circumstances, the order of the authorities below are confirmed to the extent that the taxable turnover is hereby confirmed to the extent of Rs. 1,50,760 towards sales suppression Rs. 83,180 on the wrong claim of deduction, Rs. 4,461 with gross profit at 10 per cent on the turnover falling under section 7A. As regards penalty of section 12(3)(b)(ii), we confirm the consequential levy of penalty and uphold the same proportionate to the turnovers upheld. The writ petition is allowed in part. There will, however, be no orders as to costs. Connected W.P.M.P. No. 9000 of 2004 is closed.