Referable question of law requires issue to arise from the revisional order; turnover estimation based on prior year upheld.

A question could be referred only if it arose from the revisional order, meaning it had been raised before or decided by the revisional authority. On that basis, the challenge to enhancement of turnover and the limitation issue were not referable because the jurisdictional objection was neither urged nor determined in revision, and the revisional figure did not exceed the original assessment. The estimate of turnover was also upheld as non-arbitrary because the revisional authority relied on the preceding year's turnover as a practical guide, with no departure from normal business conditions shown. No referable question of law was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first two questions, relating to enhancement of turnover and limitation, arose out of the revisional order so as to justify a reference. (ii) Whether the estimate of turnover made by the revisional authority was arbitrary or based on conjectures and surmises.

Issue (i): Whether the first two questions, relating to enhancement of turnover and limitation, arose out of the revisional order so as to justify a reference.

Analysis: A question can be referred only if it arose from the order under challenge, either because it was raised before the revisional authority or because it was decided by it. The plea that the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to enhance turnover was neither raised nor decided in revision. The enhancement contention therefore could not be treated as arising out of the revisional order. It was also held that no enhancement, in the relevant sense, occurred because the revisional figure remained below the turnover originally assessed by the Sales Tax Officer.

Conclusion: The first two questions were not referable.

Issue (ii): Whether the estimate of turnover made by the revisional authority was arbitrary or based on conjectures and surmises.

Analysis: The revisional authority relied on the turnover of the preceding year as a safe guide for the following assessment years. The earlier year's turnover had itself been fixed after considering the effect of restrictions on movement of food grains and the levy system. In the absence of any departure from normal business conditions, use of the preceding year's turnover as a basis for estimation was treated as a permissible approach and not as a matter giving rise to a question of law.

Conclusion: The estimate was not shown to be arbitrary or based on conjectures and surmises, and no reference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The reference applications failed in entirety, and no referable question of law was made out on either the jurisdictional or the estimation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A question of law is referable only if it was raised before, or decided by, the revisional authority, and estimation of turnover may validly rest on the preceding year's turnover where business conditions remain normal.

---