Revisional power requires independent proof of illegality and revenue prejudice, not mere reliance on an inspection report.

Revisional power under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could not be sustained merely on the basis of an inspecting officer's report. The HC noted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed a reasoned order and that the revisional authority had neither displaced those factual findings nor made an independent enquiry to show that the appellate order was illegal and prejudicial to revenue. Mere reliance on a prior inspection report was held insufficient to justify revision, and the impugned revisional order was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained when it was founded only on the inspecting officer's report and without an independent enquiry into whether the appellate order was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Analysis: The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had passed a detailed and reasoned order on the facts and the assessment was given effect to. The revisional authority did not disturb the factual findings of the appellate authority, nor did it conduct any independent enquiry to show that the appellate order was illegal or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Mere reliance on the earlier inspection report, without more, was held insufficient to invoke the revisional power under section 34.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned revisional order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under section 34 can be exercised only on an independent finding that the appellate order is illegal and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and not merely on the basis of an inspection report predating the appellate decision.

---