P. Chandra Reddy, C.J.
1. This revision petition filed against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming that of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, which confirmed the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool, making an estimate of the turnover of the assessee at Rs. 11,32,253-9-0, relates to the assessment year 1955-56.
2. The assessee is a dealer in groundnut oil and cake, Nandyal. For the year 1955-56, he submitted a gross turnover of Rs. 16,31,211 and a net turnover of Rs. 8,96,549. In the course of the assessment year, i.e., on 12th August, 1955, the Commercial Tax Officer seized some account books in the factory of one Messrs. Bachu Balaiah and Chinna Pullaiah Shelling and Oil Mills, which disclosed that between 1st April, 1955 and the date of seizure a turnover to the tune of about Rs. 1,30,000 was suppressed. These books also revealed that the assessee had suppressed a turnover of more that Rs. 75,000 in the previous year also. When the assessee was called upon to show cause why an estimate of Rs. 2,61,828-13-8 for the rest of the year should not be made on the basis of the suppressions he replied that the books did not relate to his business and that they were not recovered from his business premises. The Commercial Tax Officer rejected these pleas and assessed him on a net turnover of Rs. 11,32,253-9-0.
3. This was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on further appeal. This revision is presented against the order of the Tribunal.
4. The chief contention of Sri D. Venkatappayya Sastri, counsel for the petitioner, is that there is no basis for making an addition of Rs. 2,61,828-15-8 for the rest of the year. The subsequent inspections made by the Commercial Tax Officer did not disclose any material to indicate that there was any suppression for the period after 12th August, 1955, when the seizure was made and, therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,61,828-15-8 is arbitrary, contends the learned counsel.
5. In support of the contention that the mere fact that the account books produced by the petitioner were rejected and that the secret books seized disclosed that there was suppression for a particular period would not warrant the conclusion that there must have been suppression for the whole year, the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar  8 S.T.C. 770, and on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in Jami Narasayya Prusty & Brothers v. State of Orissa  9 S.T.C. 648.
6. We do not think that neither of these cases lends any assistance to the petitioner. In both the cases, there was no material on which an estimate could be made. In the first case, though there was justification for rejecting the account books of the petitioner, the estimate did not relate to any evidence or material and it rested merely on suspicion. That is not the case here. As pointed out by the Tribunal, some secret books seized from the premises of the business of the assessee showed that there was suppression of a large turnover to the extent of about Rs. 1,30,000. It cannot also be ignored in this behalf that the petitioner suppressed a part of the turnover even in the previous year. Moreover, the Tribunal which looked into the account books produced before it, observed that there were other secret books which related to a further suppression but they were not taken into account by the assessing authority. It cannot, therefore, be postulated that the estimate made by the assessing authority was based merely on suspicion or on pure guess. There was sufficient material which could furnish a basis for making the estimate.
7. Jami Narasayya Prusty & Brothers v. Stale of Orissa  9 S.T.C. 648 is of the same category as Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar  8 S.T.C. 771. In that case, the estimate was made merely on the basis of reputation. There was evidence that the sales of five watches costing Rs. 125 were not brought into account. This led the assessing authority to add a sum of Rs. 15,000 as having been suppressed merely on the ground of reputation. The High Court of Orissa found that mere reputation could not furnish a proper ground for making an arbitrary estimate. We, therefore, think that this case also does not furnish any analogy here.
8. In our opinion, no exception could be taken to the assessment in question.
9. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.