https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157182 Revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be invoked only if the order revised was both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. A permissible appellate estimate of suppressed turnover, adopted on the facts and limited to the period up to inspection, was not a legal error merely because another method might have yielded a higher demand. The Commissioner's reversal on jaggery, based on suspicion despite the appellate finding that the Nond book record showed no suppression, was likewise an invalid basis for revision. The penalty, resting entirely on that unsustainable revisional interference, could not survive and was set aside. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:41:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157182 Revisional jurisdiction under section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could be invoked only if the order revised was both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. A permissible appellate estimate of suppressed turnover, adopted on the facts and limited to the period up to inspection, was not a legal error merely because another method might have yielded a higher demand. The Commissioner's reversal on jaggery, based on suspicion despite the appellate finding that the Nond book record showed no suppression, was likewise an invalid basis for revision. The penalty, resting entirely on that unsustainable revisional interference, could not survive and was set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 31 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157182