Revisional interference based on presumptions fails where disputed transactions require fresh enquiry and fair opportunity to test evidence.

Revisional interference in disputed turnover matters cannot rest on untested presumptions or statements recorded behind the dealer's back. Where attribution of Hundi and railway collection transactions is in issue, the authority must conduct a proper enquiry, examine the relevant parties and accounts, and afford fair opportunity, including cross-examination where necessary. An ex parte assessment that has already been set aside cannot simply be restored without such investigation. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable and the matter had to be remanded for fresh enquiry and decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in restoring the original ex parte assessment without conducting a fresh enquiry and whether the matter should instead be remanded for proper investigation of the disputed Hundi and railway collection transactions.

Analysis: The original ex parte assessment had already been set aside and ceased to exist. The reassessing authority thereafter accepted the dealer's accounts and affidavits and recorded findings in his favour. The revisional authority interfered on the basis of presumptions and statements recorded behind the dealer's back, without examining the concerned parties, their accounts, or the railway collection entries, and without holding any independent enquiry. In a matter turning on disputed transactions and attribution of business, the correct course was either to undertake a proper enquiry itself or to remand the matter for such enquiry. An assessment or revisional order cannot stand merely on presumption where the relevant evidence has not been tested.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not be sustained as it was founded on presumption rather than enquiry; the matter was required to be remanded for fresh investigation and decision according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where disputed turnover depends on attribution of transactions to the assessee, revisional interference cannot rest on untested presumptions and must be supported by proper enquiry and opportunity of cross-examination, failing which remand is appropriate.

---