Revisional sales tax interference fails where electricity-based turnover estimates lack test checks and reliable unit-specific evidence

Revisional interference in a sales tax assessment depends on whether the underlying addition is supported by reliable material. A stock-variation addition was treated as a factual matter, and the revisional view was sustained because the appellate deletion was not shown to be perverse. By contrast, an addition based on electricity consumption was held unsafe where it rested on estimates without a test check in the assessee's own unit and without regard to the condition of the machinery or business. The revisional order was therefore sustained on stock variation but set aside on electricity consumption, resulting in partial relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the appellate order and restoring the turnover addition based on stock variation; (ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the appellate order and restoring the turnover addition based on electricity consumption.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the appellate order and restoring the turnover addition based on stock variation.

Analysis: The stock discrepancy was treated as a question of fact. The assessee had not raised an immediate objection and had also paid tax and compounding fee. On the record, the appellate authority's deletion of the addition was not shown to be so perverse as to warrant interference in revision.

Conclusion: The revision on the stock variation issue was not interfered with in the assessee's favour; the Commissioner's view on this item stood.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the appellate order and restoring the turnover addition based on electricity consumption.

Analysis: The estimate was based on electricity consumption without any test check in the assessee's own mill. The machinery was old, and the record did not establish that the mill could be treated as comparable with modern units or that the departmental estimate was reliable. An estimate founded on such material was not a safe basis for revisional interference.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was not justified in revising the appellate order on the basis of electricity consumption; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was sustained on the stock variation issue but set aside on the electricity consumption issue, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional interference with a sales tax assessment cannot be sustained where an addition based on electricity consumption rests on an estimate unsupported by a test check in the assessee's own unit and ignores the specific condition of the machinery and business.

---