JUDGMENT C. VENKATARAMULU, J. The main question, inter alia, arises for consideration of this Court, under the given circumstances of this case, is that : "Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, was right in revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and setting aside the said order and restoring the order of the Commercial Tax Officer, Podili ?" The brief facts noticed are as under : The appellant herein, M/s. Sri. Rama Oil Company, Giddalur, Prakasham district (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee"), are the manufacturers of groundnut oil and cake. On February 11, 1984, the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Nellore, inspected the mill and found variations in the stocks. The assessee had paid both tax and compounding fees. Subsequently, verification as to the particulars of the electricity consumption indicated an additional turnover. The Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) found the same was not brought to tax and the assessing authority included the said variation in the assessment for the year 1983-1984 and a further turnover relating to certain purchases was also included to the taxable turnover. Mainly, the turnover, which was brought to tax was on three counts. (a) Rs. 2,29,500 brought to tax on the basis of an inspection of the premises of the assessee when certain variations in stocks were noticed; (b) An amount of Rs. 12,33,840 brought to tax based on variations in the consumption of electricity; (c) An amount of Rs. 6,28,264 included in the turnover liable to tax, which relates to purchases from those dealers whom the assessing authority found to be bogus. On the basis of rival contentions, the appellate authority, in so far as item "a" is concerned, held that there was a negligible variation in the stocks as about 1,325 bags of groundnut was available in the godown and 20 bags of groundnut in the mill premises totalling 1,345 bags and as per the stock register it was noted as 1,419 bags of groundnut. Thus, the negligible variation was only 84 bags of groundnut. The Inspecting Authority has recorded that 191 bags of groundnut were received on the date of inspection and they were not accounted for. Further, it cannot be accepted, as some reasonable time requires for taking the above receipts on to the books of account. Thus, the negligible variation was only 84 bags of groundnut. The Inspecting Authority has recorded that 191 bags of groundnut were received on the date of inspection and they were not accounted for. Further, it cannot be accepted, as some reasonable time requires for taking the above receipts on to the books of account. The Inspecting Authority also did not take the stock inventory duly weighing or measuring to arrive at a definite variation in the stocks. Thus, it cannot be said that they have wantonly not accounted the said stocks. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any variation, which requires to be taken seriously in the matter. In so far as the second aspect is concerned, i.e., turnover on account of variation in the consumption of electricity and the tax based on variations, the appellate authority said that the mill and machinery is of more than 25 years old and it cannot be compared with the modern and sophisticated mill, and as such, it is difficult to come to the conclusion as to the yield of oil, etc, on the basis of consumption of power by the mill. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the division Bench of the Kerala High Court in St. Teresa's Oil Mills v. State of Kerala [1970] 25 STC 497 wherein it was held that "it is not safe to rely upon the variations in the consumption of the electricity, which is unidentified and not to be taken into account without any test check". In so far as item "c" is concerned, the Appellate Commissioner held that the purchase of groundnut oil from bogus dealers found to be not correct, as the copies of assessment orders filed by the authorised representatives show that all those dealers to whom the assessee referred are on the rolls of the respective assessing authorities in the State, and as such, they cannot be said to be bogus dealers. The appeal was allowed in toto. The appeal was allowed in toto. Against this order, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, had taken up revision under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 and issued a show cause notice stating that the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool, was examined with rules and law and found to be illegal and incorrect and consequently prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue warranting revision under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. After hearing both the parties, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes set aside the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kurnool, in respect of item "a" and "b" and in so far as item "c" is concerned he dropped the revision. In so far as item "a" is concerned, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes held that it is not open to the assessee to deny what has been clearly admitted and plead that he had admitted the same under coercion and paid the compounding fees in addition to the tax. On a perusal of the record by this Court, it was found that the inspection had taken place on February 11, 1984. The petitioner has not raised any objection at the earliest point of time, and he improved the case after two or three years, when he has filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The variation of stocks is a pure question of fact and the petitioner had admitted the same and paid the compounding fees in addition to the tax, and as such, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that he had paid the tax and compounding fees under coercion. Thus, we consider that it is not open for this Court to interfere into the factual findings of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the order of revision, dated July 31, 1993. Thus, the contention of the appellant cannot be rejected (sic). Coming to the item "b", i.e., tax based on variation in the consumption of electricity, it is seen that the fact that the machinery of the mill was of 25 years old, and it is not sophisticated and modern machinery is not in dispute. Thus, the contention of the appellant cannot be rejected (sic). Coming to the item "b", i.e., tax based on variation in the consumption of electricity, it is seen that the fact that the machinery of the mill was of 25 years old, and it is not sophisticated and modern machinery is not in dispute. The variation in the consumption of electricity is due to various other factors outside the control of the assessee and it is not safe to take the electricity consumption into consideration for the purpose of fixing the turnover of the mill as "no test check" as to the present yielding of the mill was conducted. The only aspect considered by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, in this regard, is that there was a variation of electricity consumption, compared to the turnover shown in the books of account, as to the crushing of groundnut. As per the records, the mill had consumed 69,791 units, whereas, according to the books of account and compared to the turnover, the electricity normally consumed would come to 44,312 units, and as such, there was a variation of 25,659 units, i.e., 57 per cent higher than the estimated consumption and this is very large figure and it cannot be ignored. He also puts it that no alternative figure of consumption was actually spelt out to substitute for the standard figures admitted by the assessing authority by the appellant. This argument seems to be on the basis of the presumption that the mill is working under the same standards taken into consideration by the department but the age of the machinery was not denied and no test check was conducted. We notice that, even the department had not suggested any alternative figure taking into consideration the age of the plant and machinery. In this regard, the appellant placed reliance on a reported judgment of this Court in N. Raja Pullaiah v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool [1969] 24 STC 90 wherein the head note reads as under : "The assessing authority rejected the account books of the assessee, an oil miller, and estimated the turnover on the basis of consumption of electricity and the result of tests conducted in other mills. No test, however, was conducted in the assessee's mill to find out the rate of consumption of electricity for a definite quantity of seeds to be converted into oil. No test, however, was conducted in the assessee's mill to find out the rate of consumption of electricity for a definite quantity of seeds to be converted into oil. The assessee questioned the assessment in writ proceedings." It was further held that "all the mills could not be said to be similarly circumstanced in all respects and as such the assessment based on the data of mills other than the assessee's mill was arbitrary". This is a case, where the assessing authority rejected the account books of the assessee, an oil miller and estimated the turnover on the basis of consumption of electricity and the result of tests conducted in other mills. No tests, however, was conducted in the assessee's mill to find out the rate of consumption of electricity for a definite quantity of seeds to be converted into oil. Under these circumstances, it was held that the mill could not be said to be similarly circumstanced in all respects, and as such, the assessment based on the data of mills other than the assessee's mill was arbitrary. It was also pointed out. "............ that in like cases, the Tribunal itself has set aside the assessments in view of the wide disparity in electricity consumption from mill to mill for the required quantity of oil yield. Be that, what it may, it is plain knowing it for certain, that the turnover depends on various factors and circumstances peculiar to the rotaries concerned, the taxing authority rested their conclusions on the tests carried in other rotaries. The basis furnished by tests conducted in other undertakings cannot be of much relevance for the purpose of these mills about which it cannot be said that they are similarly circumstanced in all respects. As the data relied upon by the assessing authorities, which is made the basis of best judgment assessment, thus smacks of arbitrariness, the best judgment of assessment is liable to be set aside". The Revenue relied upon a judgment in Madurai Soft Drinks Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1985] 60 STC 94 wherein the High Court of Madras, in the circumstances of that case held that : "...... there has been actual test check in the assessees' own factory and it is not based on any arbitrary figure .............. The Revenue relied upon a judgment in Madurai Soft Drinks Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1985] 60 STC 94 wherein the High Court of Madras, in the circumstances of that case held that : "...... there has been actual test check in the assessees' own factory and it is not based on any arbitrary figure .............. If the assessees had produced any acceptable material to show that one Kg., of Co2 gas was not able to produce the said out turn for any special reason or reasons, it would have been a different matter. But in this case, except saying that the same out turn cannot be accepted for the previous year, no special reason has been shown as to why it was not possible to produce the same out turn. In this view of the matter, we do not see any justification for interfering with the order of the Tribunal." The principles laid down in Madurai Soft Drinks Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu [1985] 60 STC 94 (Mad.) was that, the test check was conducted, and the petitioner was not able to dispute the same, when compared to the turnover of the previous year. This has no relevance to the facts on hand. In the case on hand, no test check was conducted and the groundnut cake was not verified and the fact that the machinery of 25 years old was not taken into consideration nor the previous years turnover was verified to come to such a conclusion. On the other hand, in N. Raja Pullaiah v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kurnool [1969] 24 STC 90, this Court held that "all the mills could not be said to be similarly circumstances in all respects and as such the assessment based on the data of mills other than the assessee's mill was arbitrary". It was further noticed, "that in like cases, the Tribunal itself has set aside the assessments in view of the wide disparity in electricity consumption from mill to mill for the required quantity of oil yield". It was further noticed, "that in like cases, the Tribunal itself has set aside the assessments in view of the wide disparity in electricity consumption from mill to mill for the required quantity of oil yield". In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not correct in revising the order of the Appellate Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 20(1) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act, 1957, in so far as item "b", i.e., basing the turnover on the consumption of power by the appellant-mill and hold that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not correct in law, in revising the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner in this regard. The appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.