- (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Appeals, Udaipur, dated 27. 3. 1965.
(2.) THE assessee had claimed deductions in respect of the turnover of Rs. 25,679/-relating to its Bikaner branch on the ground that these were printing charges, but the assessing authority after examining the accounts of the branch office and also other relevant bills rejected the claim in respect of Rs. 17,679/- out of the above turnover and charged tax at 4% inter alia on the amount of Rs. 17,679/- by treating it as the sale proceed of papers and the material used in printing. THE assessee went in appeal against this order. THE Deputy Commissioner, (Appeals'!, examined the accounts books and the bills of the assessee as a test check and came to the conclusion that the assessee firm had been supplied paper and material by its customers for printing work in as many as half the cases and the bills issued were only for printing charges. He, therefore, held that the estimate of taxable turnover at Rs. 17,679/- was not reasonable and fair. He reduced the sum to Rs. 11,000/- and ordered accordingly. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee-petitioner is that his firm has no paper in stock. It is argued that the taxation authorities are not justified in invoking the provisions of sec. 18 (4) (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, since all the books have been properly maintained by the assessee and are subject to examination by the taxation authorities. It is urged that the statement of the learned Deputy Commissioner that the assessee firm had supplied paper and material by its customers in as many as half the cases is contrary to fact; it is contended that the paper and material was supplied by its customers to the firm in all the cases, and the judgment of both the taxation authorities is based on surmises and conjectures, which is unwarranted in view of the rule laid down in the State of Kerla vs. C. Velukutty (S. T. C 1966 page 465), wherein it was observed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court that the limits of the power of the assessing authority are implicit in the expression "best of judgment". Judgment is a faculty to decide matters with wisdom truly and legally'. Judgment does not depend upon the arbitrary caprice of a judge, but on settled and invariable principles of justice. Though there is an element of guess-work in a best judgment assessment, it shall not be a wild one, but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. It is urged that in this case all the material was placed before the assessing authority, and there is no question of applying the "best of judgment" method, which should be adopted only if a dealer has not regularly employed any method of accounting or if the method employed is such that in the opinion of the assessing authority assessment cannot properly be made on the basis thereof as laid down in sec. 10 (4) (b) of the Act. This contention must prevail. The learned Government Advocate has tried to repel the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that no affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and further that no revision is maintainable in the case of a concurrent finding by the courts below. He has, however, not been able to controvert the assertion of the assessee that in this case all books had been properly maintained and are subject to the scrutiny and examination of the assessing authority. A perusal of the impugned judgment obviously shows that the judgment of the assessing authority is based merely on a surmise, and there is no firm basis for estimating the taxable turnover at Rs. 11,000/ -. In these circumstances, I accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remand the case to the assessing authority for reassessing the taxable - turnover of the assessee in the light of the observations made above, and to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. .;