Best judgment assessment and penalty upheld where belated return, no accounts, and wilful suppression justified penal treatment.

A belated return filed after proceedings had begun, unsupported by account books or other material, was treated as insufficient to verify the dealer's true turnover. The authorities found that the dealer had not maintained accounts despite extensive transactions, had delayed filing, and had attempted to rely on an incorrect return after investigation commenced. On those facts, the conduct was characterised as deliberate and wilful suppression, supporting invocation of the best judgment assessment process and the penal provision's second limb for failure to submit a proper return. The best judgment assessment and penalty were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment under the best judgment method and the penalty imposed under the sales tax law were valid on the facts, where the dealer filed a return belatedly without supporting accounts and the authorities found deliberate non-disclosure.

Analysis: The return was filed only after proceedings had been initiated, and no account books or supporting material were produced to verify it. The authorities recorded findings that the dealer had not maintained accounts despite extensive transactions, had delayed filing the return, and had attempted to rely on an incorrect return after investigation began. On those findings, the conduct was treated as amounting to deliberate and wilful suppression, making the case akin to a failure to submit a return for the purpose of the penalty provision. The distinction between the general assessment provision and the penal provision was applied to hold that the record disclosed sufficient material for invoking the best judgment process and the second limb of the penalty section.

Conclusion: The best judgment assessment and the penalty were upheld, and the challenge failed.

---