R. K. GULATI, J. - (1.) This is a revision under section 11 (1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The dispute arises out of an order of assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1979-80. The assessee deals in the sale of furniture and is registered both under the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Act. In the return filed for that year under the Central Sales Tax Act (for short "the Central Act") the assessee admitted the turnover of Rs. 4,452. 50 covered by form 3-D. No turnover was admitted under the U. P. Sales Tax Act (for short "the State Act" ). The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the version of the assessee and rejected the returns filed under both the Acts for the reasons amongst others that the assessee had failed to produce the cash book, cash memos and manufacturing registers, etc. Upon rejection of the returns, the Sales Tax Officer proceeded to determine the turnover on best judgment. He drew up a common order purporting to be both, for the turnovers liable under the State Act as well as Central Act and estimated a consolidated taxable turnover at rupees one lakh out of which rupees sixty thousand was bifurcated as liable under State Act and the balance turnover of rupees forty thousand under the Central Act in addition to the turnover of Rs. 4,452. 50 that was admitted by the assessee. The assessee preferred two appeals questioning the correctness of the assessments made under the the State as well as Central Acts. Both the appeals were again decided by a common order. The turnover assessed under the State Act was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment. So far as the turnover assessed under the Central Act was concerned the additional made to the returned turnover was deleted. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue went up in second appeal against the deletion as directed by the appellate authority. In due course the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, hence this revision by the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee has assailed the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the appellate order nor the case of the assessee that it had done no business during the year nor any manufacturing activity was undertaken. It was submitted that the appellate authority had not only entertained that plea but had remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the Sales Tax Officer so far as the appeal under the State Act was concerned. The appeal under the Central Act was, however, allowed for an extra reason that no addition could have been made in absence of any material that the assessee had made inter-State sales. It was urged that the Tribunal had omitted to consider this aspect in sustaining the assessment order. In the alternative it was argued that there was no justification to sustain the fixation of turnover of rupees forty thousand. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained as the matter requires fresh consideration. As observed earlier, so far as the assessment under the State Act is concerned, the matter stands remanded to the assessing officer against which none of the parties filed appeal to the Tribunal. There is nothing on the record to indicate that after the remand any fresh assessment had been made. It is evident from the appellate order that the remand was made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the assessee had made any purchases and undertaken manufacturing activity or had effected sales during the relevant year. This remand was necessitated as the case of the assessee was that it had transacted no business during the year nor had manufactured any goods and the impugned assessments were made on imaginary and irrelevant considerations. It cannot be denied that the result of the remand was likely to have a bearing on the matter that was up for consideration before the Tribunal. In the event the assessee succeeds in establishing that in the year in question it had not transacted any business nor sold or manufactured goods, the addition is liable to be deleted on that ground alone. The appellate authority in deleting the addition under the Central Act had gone a step further placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Friends Mechanical Works v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. 1984 UPTC 93, and held that merely because the assessee's account books had been rejected under the State Act, it does not necessarily follow that the assessee had made inter-State sales on which he could be assessed unless some material to the contrary was placed on record which was completely lacking in the assessment order. The Tribunal has not dealt with this aspect at all in reversing the order of the appellate authority. As regards the quantum of assessment, the Tribunal remarked : " Once the books are rejected, there is reasonable scope of determination of turnover on the basis of best judgment. In my opinion, the order of the assessing authority cannot be said to be unreasonable and excessive. " The approach of the Tribunal, in my opinion, was wholly erroneous. In all fairness the Tribunal should have awaited the result of the remand before rejecting the version of the assessee, namely, that in the relevant year no business was carried on or transacted. The order passed by the Tribunal was not one of affirmance. In such a situation before upsetting the order of the appellate authority it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to advert to the findings of the appellate authority that the assessment order furnish no material for any addition that the assessee had made inter-State sales. This finding of the appellate authority has not been upset by the Tribunal. In absence of relevant finding on this score by the Tribunal, the appellate order could not legally be set aside. Coming to the quantum of assessment, no objection can be taken to the remarks of the Tribunal that once the account books are rejected there is reasonable scope for determination of turnover on best judgment. However, the latter part of the observations of the Tribunal that the order of the assessing authority cannot be said to be unreasonable and excessive, is wholly unwarranted which have been made without adverting itself on the merits of that issue. The Tribunal seems to be under the impression that once the accounts are rejected, the determination of the turnover on best judgment is permissible on any turnover without any nexus to the material on record. The rejection of the account books and determination of turnover on best judgment are two different matters. An estimate made after the rejection of the account books of the assessee cannot be based on mere conjectures. The power to estimate turnover, etc. , where accounts are unreliable must be exercised not arbitrarily but judiciously in the light of the relevant material. In Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar [1957] 8 STC 770, the Supreme Court observed : " No doubt it is true that when the returns and the books of account are rejected, the assessing officer must make an estimate, and to that extent he must make a guess; but the estimate must be related to some evidence or material and it must be something more than mere suspicion. To use the words of Lord Russel of Killowen again, 'he must make what he honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the proper figure as assessment' and for this purpose he must take into consideration such materials as the assessing officer has before him, including the assessee's circumstances, knowledge of previous returns and all other matters which the assessing officer thinks will assist him in arriving at a fair and proper estimate. " It is evident that rejection of account books does not confer jurisdiction to make punitive assessment and to decide the matter without wisdom, truly and legally. Even in a case of best judgment an honest attempt must be made to adopt the turnover which approximates more near to the truth. It may be noticed at this stage that in determining the turnover at rupees forty thousand the Sales Tax Officer had applied the rule of thumb and the assessment order does not refer to any material worth the name. The Tribunal was in error in restoring the assessment by making sweeping remarks noticed earlier in a cursory manner which do not show any application of mind. It has already been stated that the order of the appellate authority in dealing this aspect of the matter was left out of consideration by the Tribunal which was not proper. In view of what has been stated above, the order of the Tribunal giving rise to this revision cannot be maintained and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal with the direction that while giving effect to this judgment the Tribunal shall restore the appeal giving rise to this revision to its original number and decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above in accordance with law. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;