https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159506 Section 34 revisional power under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held distinct from escaped-assessment machinery under section 16(1), so the limitation in section 16(1) did not restrict suo motu revision and the bar in section 34(2)(b) did not apply where the order revised had not been carried further in appeal or revision. On the merits, the Court upheld the legal inference that suppressed groundnut kernel purchases were ordinarily crushed into oil and oil cake, supporting the estimated turnover in one matter because the inference was based on the record and was not perverse. In the separate matter, revisional interference was rejected where the appellate finding on sales to agriculturists was evidence-based. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:13:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159506 Section 34 revisional power under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was held distinct from escaped-assessment machinery under section 16(1), so the limitation in section 16(1) did not restrict suo motu revision and the bar in section 34(2)(b) did not apply where the order revised had not been carried further in appeal or revision. On the merits, the Court upheld the legal inference that suppressed groundnut kernel purchases were ordinarily crushed into oil and oil cake, supporting the estimated turnover in one matter because the inference was based on the record and was not perverse. In the separate matter, revisional interference was rejected where the appellate finding on sales to agriculturists was evidence-based. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 05 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=159506