Best judgment purchase tax requires proof of the jurisdictional fact; an unsupported assumption cannot sustain the levy.

Purchase tax under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act could not be sustained without material showing that the petitioner had purchased sugarcane. The court noted that although best judgment assessment is permissible, it must rest on some documentary, circumstantial, or other evidence and not on a capricious or arbitrary assumption. Because the foundational jurisdictional fact of purchase was not established, the revisional authority lacked jurisdiction to levy the tax, and the impugned order was quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority had jurisdiction to levy purchase tax in the absence of material showing purchase of sugarcane by the petitioner.

Analysis: The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged an order passed under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961. The record disclosed no documentary, circumstantial, or other evidence to show that the petitioner had purchased sugarcane. While a best judgment assessment is permissible, it cannot be founded on a capricious or arbitrary assumption. The existence of purchase of sugarcane was a necessary jurisdictional basis for the levy.

Conclusion: The revisional authority acted without jurisdiction because the foundational fact of purchase was not established, and the impugned order was liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside, with parties left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax authority cannot sustain a best judgment levy unless the jurisdictional fact giving rise to the charge is established by some material on record; an arbitrary or unsupported guess cannot confer jurisdiction.

---