JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. -- This revision emanates from assessment proceedings taken out with reference to interstate purchases effected in the assessment year 1989-90. 2. The revisionist, who is a registered dealer was engaged in the manufacture of articles from timber. It is stated to have purchased timber from an agent in the State of Gujarat in terms of an invoice which stands appended as Annexure-1 to the paper book. Since the selling dealer is stated to be situate in the State of Gujarat, the tax invoice was also made out in Gujarati script for a sum of Rs. 5,22,792/-. It is the case of the revisionist that due to an inadvertent mistake, the purchase value of Rs. 5,22,792/- was shown as Rs. 4,22,792/- in the returns which were initially submitted. However, upon realising this mistake, the revisionist is stated to have filed a revised return in terms of the liberty conferred upon an assessee by virtue of sub-section (1-C) of Section 7 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The assessee is stated to have disclosed the value of the purchase as Rs. 5,22,792/- and accordingly also deposited the additional tax which was due and payable thereon. Significantly, the assessing authority in paragraph 3 of the order of assessment records that the explanation of an inadvertent mistake was accepted. However, while finalising the assessment, the assessing authority proceeded to hold that the revisionist had imported goods into the State of U.P. valued at Rs. 4 lacs without cover of Form-C. On the basis of the said conclusion, an additional tax liability was imposed upon the revisionist. The matter was taken in appeal to the first appellate authority and thereafter to the Tribunal which has affirmed the findings recorded by the assessing authority. 3. Significantly, neither the assessing authority nor the Tribunal assigned any reason for disbelieving the revised return which was filed by the assessee by virtue of provisions of Section 7(1-C) as noted above. In fact the assessing authority having accepted the explanation proffered by the revisionist that the purchase figure of Rs. 5,22,792/- was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 4,22,792/- in light of the fact that the numerals were in Gujarati script, the presumption that the turnover was suppressed and the tax was sought to be evaded clearly could not have been justified. 4. In fact the assessing authority having accepted the explanation proffered by the revisionist that the purchase figure of Rs. 5,22,792/- was wrongly mentioned as Rs. 4,22,792/- in light of the fact that the numerals were in Gujarati script, the presumption that the turnover was suppressed and the tax was sought to be evaded clearly could not have been justified. 4. In any view of the matter, this Court finds no material which may have justified the assessing authority in coming to the conclusion that the suppressed turnover was to the extent of Rs. 4 lacs. This assumption by the assessing authority is based on no material evidence and is clearly based on surmises which is unsustainable in law. The Court finds that the assessing authority neither refers to nor relies upon any material which could have remotely established that an attempt was made to evade tax. The inadvertent mistake having been accepted, would leave the assessing authority clearly no ground which would warrant rejection of books of accounts. The Court may further note that sub-section (3) of Section 7 which confers power upon the assessing authority to reject the self assessed accounts and proceed to undertake a best judgement employs the words "determine" and " to the best of his judgement". The use of the aforesaid two expressions while conferring a degree of discretion and guess work in the hands of the assessing authority cannot be utilised as a licence to either reject the books of accounts which have otherwise been correctly maintained nor can it be utilised to justify the above order of imposition of additional liability. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal erred in proceeding to affirm the order of the assessing authority. 5. For all the aforesaid reason, this revision stands allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.5.2005 as also of the assessing authority dated 28.2.1994 are set aside.