Best-judgment assessment upheld where dealer filed no return and failed to prove double or treble taxation.

Where a dealer filed no return and produced fictitious accounts instead of genuine books, a best-judgment assessment based on the materials available was treated as permissible. In summary proceedings, the taxing authority could rely on prior returns, earlier assessments, local knowledge and other relevant circumstances, provided the estimate was honest and not capricious, vindictive or dishonest. On the facts, there was no reliable basis to show that the assessment lacked proper foundation, and no substantiated material established double or treble assessment on the same sale within the relevant period. The referred questions were therefore treated as not really arising from the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts found, any question of double or treble assessment over the same sale within the same period arose so as to require an answer on reference, and whether the assessment made under the best-judgment provision could be assailed on the footing that the taxing authority had acted without proper basis.

Analysis: The assessee had filed no return for the relevant quarter and had maintained both genuine and fictitious books, producing the fictitious set at the assessment stage. The available record showed that the taxing authority had proceeded on materials before it and had made an assessment to the best of its judgment under the applicable provision. In such summary proceedings, the authority was not confined to any single class of material and could take into account previous returns, assessments, local knowledge, and other relevant circumstances, provided the estimate was honest and not capricious, vindictive, or dishonest. On the facts, there was no material to show that the assessment was of that prohibited character, nor was there any reliable basis to establish that double or treble assessment over the same sale had in fact been made.

Conclusion: The referred questions did not really arise from the record and no answer was given.

Final Conclusion: The reference was left unanswered because the assessment was upheld as a best-judgment assessment made on the materials available, and no substantiated issue of double or treble taxation was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer fails to file a return and withholds genuine accounts, an assessment made honestly to the best of judgment on available materials in summary proceedings will not be disturbed absent proof that it was capricious, vindictive, or unsupported by the record.

---