Revisional jurisdiction must independently examine all factual and legal issues; concurrent findings alone cannot replace fresh adjudication.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as co-extensive with appellate power when invoked by a party, requiring the revising authority to independently consider all questions of fact and law raised before it. Concurrent findings by the assessing and appellate authorities did not relieve it of that duty, so a mere endorsement of earlier conclusions without independent scrutiny was treated as inadequate, and the brick kiln turnover issue was remitted for fresh consideration. By contrast, the enhancement of turnover relating to molasses rested on factual findings found free from legal infirmity and was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revising authority was bound to decide independently all questions of fact and law raised before it despite concurrent findings recorded by the lower authorities; (ii) whether the enhancement of turnover in respect of molasses could be interfered with in revision.

Issue (i): whether the revising authority was bound to decide independently all questions of fact and law raised before it despite concurrent findings recorded by the lower authorities.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as co-extensive with appellate jurisdiction when invoked by a party. On that basis, the revising authority was required to entertain, investigate and pronounce upon all questions of fact and law raised before it. The existence of concurrent findings by the assessing and appellate authorities did not prevent the revising authority from examining the assessee's challenge to the alleged survey and the rejection of accounts. As the revising authority merely endorsed the earlier findings without independent examination, it failed to discharge that duty.

Conclusion: The revising authority ought to have decided the questions independently, and the matter relating to the brick kiln business required remand for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): whether the enhancement of turnover in respect of molasses could be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The enhancement relating to molasses rested on findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. No legal infirmity or jurisdictional error was found in those findings, and they were treated as beyond interference in the present revisions.

Conclusion: The enhancement of turnover in respect of molasses was not interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only to the extent that the brick kiln turnover issue was remitted for fresh decision, while the molasses addition was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A revising authority exercising jurisdiction under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act must independently decide all questions of fact and law raised before it, and cannot simply affirm concurrent findings without its own adjudication.

---