https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330189 Section 37 of the KGST Act permits suo motu revision where a subordinate order is prejudicial to revenue, meaning it is not in accordance with law and causes lawful revenue to go unrealised. The Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner was justified in revising the first revisional order because that order accepted the dealer's failure to maintain true and correct accounts but wrongly interfered on the assumption that the penalty rested on mere estimation. The court also held that the stock variation and turnover quantification were based on the dealer's own records and inspection findings, so the penalty was not liable to be disturbed as a wild estimate. The revenue's challenge succeeded. en-us Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:15:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330189 Section 37 of the KGST Act permits suo motu revision where a subordinate order is prejudicial to revenue, meaning it is not in accordance with law and causes lawful revenue to go unrealised. The Kerala High Court held that the Commissioner was justified in revising the first revisional order because that order accepted the dealer's failure to maintain true and correct accounts but wrongly interfered on the assumption that the penalty rested on mere estimation. The court also held that the stock variation and turnover quantification were based on the dealer's own records and inspection findings, so the penalty was not liable to be disturbed as a wild estimate. The revenue's challenge succeeded. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 21 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330189