https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798516 Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of concurrent factual findings on turnover discrepancies and estimation merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was sustained where discrepancies between purchase turnover in books and monthly returns were supported by material, and disclosure in Form VAT-240 with an explanation of inadvertent omission did not satisfactorily explain the omissions. Interference requires perversity, absence of supporting material, or an error of law. Penalty and interest consequential to the sustained reassessment also remained valid because no independent legal error was established. No substantial question of law arose. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:20:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798516 Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of concurrent factual findings on turnover discrepancies and estimation merely because another view of the evidence is possible. Reassessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was sustained where discrepancies between purchase turnover in books and monthly returns were supported by material, and disclosure in Form VAT-240 with an explanation of inadvertent omission did not satisfactorily explain the omissions. Interference requires perversity, absence of supporting material, or an error of law. Penalty and interest consequential to the sustained reassessment also remained valid because no independent legal error was established. No substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798516