Turnover estimation from suppressed sales remained a factual issue, and a new interest question could not be raised for the first time.

Turnover estimated from suppression detected during a survey was treated as a factual determination based on appreciation of evidence, so no question of law arose on that issue and the Revenue's challenge failed. The Court also held that a new question on levy of interest under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 could not be raised for the first time because it had not been urged before, or decided by, the lower forum. The preliminary objection was therefore sustained, reinforcing that only issues raised and decided below can be carried into reference or revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the estimate of turnover based on suppression detected on a single day gave rise to a question of law; (ii) Whether the department could raise before the Court the question regarding levy of interest under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 when that question was not raised before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the estimate of turnover based on suppression detected on a single day gave rise to a question of law.

Analysis: The turnover was estimated on the basis of suppression found during survey and the Tribunal accepted the estimate. The reasoning on the quantum of estimated turnover depended upon appreciation of the material and the factual inference drawn from the detected suppression. Such estimation did not involve any unsettled legal principle and remained within the domain of factual determination.

Conclusion: No question of law arose on the turnover-estimation issue, and the revision failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the department could raise before the Court the question regarding levy of interest under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 when that question was not raised before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue.

Analysis: The only matter urged before the Division Bench was whether the case should be remanded for recalculation of interest in accordance with the finding already recorded. The Division Bench did not decide, and the department had not raised before it, the wider question whether interest under section 11-B was leviable only for completed months of default or also for part of a month. Under the amended procedure, a question not raised before and not decided by the lower forum could not be introduced for the first time in the Court.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was upheld and the department was not permitted to raise the new question of law.

Final Conclusion: Both matters were disposed of against the Revenue, and the assessees succeeded on the maintainability and jurisdictional limits of the questions sought to be raised.

Ratio Decidendi: A question cannot be treated as arising for reference or revision unless it was raised before and decided by the forum below, and factual estimation of turnover based on detected suppression does not by itself constitute a question of law.

---