https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339113 Revisional interference under Section 80 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is limited and does not allow reappreciation of evidence as in appeal. Concurrent findings based on the inspection report, loose slips, stock verification and the dealer's explanation on turnover and business commencement were treated as factual findings, with no substantial question of law, apparent error, or miscarriage of justice shown. The assessee was also held to have received adequate opportunity at the assessment, first appeal and Tribunal stages. On that basis, the penalty under Section 44(i) remained sustained under the statutory scheme. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339113 Revisional interference under Section 80 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is limited and does not allow reappreciation of evidence as in appeal. Concurrent findings based on the inspection report, loose slips, stock verification and the dealer's explanation on turnover and business commencement were treated as factual findings, with no substantial question of law, apparent error, or miscarriage of justice shown. The assessee was also held to have received adequate opportunity at the assessment, first appeal and Tribunal stages. On that basis, the penalty under Section 44(i) remained sustained under the statutory scheme. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 07 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339113