Estimated turnover from one day's sales is not a scientific basis; revision failed for lack of substantial question of law.

Estimation of suppressed turnover solely on one day's sales was treated as a crude and non-scientific basis for projecting annual turnover. Relying on binding Division Bench precedent, the HC held that where that principle had already been settled and applied by the lower authorities, the revenue's revision did not raise any debatable substantial question of law. The appellate authorities' reduction of the additions was therefore left undisturbed, and the revision petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revenue's revision petition raised any substantial question of law where the assessment of suppression and turnover had been estimated on the basis of one-day sales and the lower appellate authorities had reduced the additions.

Analysis: The assessment in dispute was founded on an estimation drawn from one day's sales. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench decision holding that estimation from a single day's sales is not a scientific method sanctioned by law and is a crude basis for projecting annual turnover. As the same legal principle had already been settled and had been applied by the authorities below, the Court held that the challenge did not give rise to any debatable substantial question of law affecting the rights of the parties.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose for consideration, and the revision petition was not entitled to succeed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment modifications made by the appellate forums were left undisturbed, and the revenue's revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Estimation of suppressed turnover solely on the basis of one day's sales is not a scientific method sanctioned by law and, where that principle is settled by binding precedent, no substantial question of law arises.

---