https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159471 Revisional interference was upheld where the appellate authority reduced penalty for conscious suppression of turnover without cogent reasons or a judicial exercise of discretion. The first appellate authority had sustained the finding of suppression but cut the penalty to 75% of tax due merely because the maximum penalty seemed high, without any special or extenuating circumstance. On those facts, the superior authority could lawfully invoke suo motu revisional power to correct the improper reduction, and restoration of penalty at one-and-a-half times the tax due was sustained. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:55:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159471 Revisional interference was upheld where the appellate authority reduced penalty for conscious suppression of turnover without cogent reasons or a judicial exercise of discretion. The first appellate authority had sustained the finding of suppression but cut the penalty to 75% of tax due merely because the maximum penalty seemed high, without any special or extenuating circumstance. On those facts, the superior authority could lawfully invoke suo motu revisional power to correct the improper reduction, and restoration of penalty at one-and-a-half times the tax due was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 24 Jun 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159471