JUDGMENT The appellant dealer is covered by the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. It is engaged in the business of running restaurants and the above appeal refers to the assessment year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. For the assessment year 1994-95, appellant declared a turnover of Rs. 1,51,25,180.99 paise. The intelligence authority inspected the business premises of M/s. Kamat Restaurant, one of the restaurants run by the appellant on 13-3-1995. During the course of inspection, the intelligence authority verified the books of accounts and pointed out that the appellant has not reported the actual turnover and threatened the appellant that he would initiate criminal prosecution against the appellant. The intelligence authority offered on opportunity of compounding the alleged offence of the appellant. The appellant chosen to pay the compounding fee though it did not admit any suppression of turnover. Cheques were issued to the intelligence authority as payment of advance tax. The assessing authority based on the intelligence report proposed to determine the turnover by adopting five times of the establishment expenses as the taxable turnover. On receipt of the said notice, a detailed replay was sent by the appellant. The assessing authority, however, proceeded to complete the proceedings to the best of its judgment by adopting 5 times of the establishment expenses as the taxable turnover. For the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97, after verification of the books of accounts, the assessing authority issued proposition notices, proposing to reject the reported turnover on the ground that the assessee failed to issued the sale bills and that the purchase of coconut declared by the appellant is very meager when compared to the volume of business. Reply was sent. The assessing authority completed the proceedings in terms of an order dtd 31-3-1999 by adopting best judgment assessment method of taking 5 times the establishment expenses as the taxable turnover. Assessee filed appeals before the appellate authority. For the assessment year 1994-95, the appellant authority allowed the appeal and directed the assessing authority to partly retain certain suppressions calculated and add back the same to reported turnover. In respect of the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97, the assessing authority passed a common order on 8-7-2004 partly allowing the appeals with a direction to the assessing authority to add the purchase turnover of coconuts as determined by the assessing authority to the turnover reported by the appellant. In respect of the assessment year 1995-96 and 1996-97, the assessing authority passed a common order on 8-7-2004 partly allowing the appeals with a direction to the assessing authority to add the purchase turnover of coconuts as determined by the assessing authority to the turnover reported by the appellant. Thereafter the revisional authority initiated suo moto revisionary proceedings in terms of Sec. 22(1) of the Act. Reply submitted by the assessee was rejected and the impugned order is passed. It is in these circumstances, appellant is before us. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant would take us through the material on record to say that the exercise of revisional power is wholly unnecessary and uncalled or in the given circumstances. He would say that compounding of offence by the assessee cannot be the basis for the purpose of reassessment as sought to be done in the case on hand. Similarly, he would also say that mere suppression of coconut expenses cannot be the basis for five times assessment as sought to be done in the case on hand. He would say that the matter requires reconsideration. He would rely on a couple of judgments Per contra, learned government advocate would oppose the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel, the following two questions of law are framed; "In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the respondent was justified in interfering with the order of the first appellate authority by which, the first appellate authority had only undone the mistakes committed by the assessing authority ? In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the respondent was right in enhancing the turnover in terms of the sales tax laws ?" From the material on record it is clear to us that the assessing authority had issued a call notice and in terms of the notice one Sri Kamath, appeared and produced the books of accounts for all the seven branches and the Head Officer. After verification, the assessing authority was of the view that the assessee has failed to maintain the sale bills. According to him, the purchase of coconut declared by the assessee is very meager compared to the volume of business. He therefore issued a proposition notice in for No. 31. Objections were filed to the notice. Thereafter, the assessing authority has chosen to issue the revised assessment order. According to him, the purchase of coconut declared by the assessee is very meager compared to the volume of business. He therefore issued a proposition notice in for No. 31. Objections were filed to the notice. Thereafter, the assessing authority has chosen to issue the revised assessment order. This order is for the assessment year 1994-95. For the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, noticing the meager purchase of coconut, notice was issued and thereafter he has chosen to pass a revised assessment order. Against these two orders, appeals were filed by the assessee. The appellate authority considered both the appeals and passed a common order. The appellate authority noticed that there was no adverse inspection report or any incriminating material found in the assessment records for both the years. The appellate authority noticed the judgment of this court in the case of Hotel Mayura v. The Addl., Commr., of Commercial Taxes (2000 (48) Kar. L.J., 120) and after noticing the said judgment, the appellate authority partly allowed the appeal and directed to respondent to add the purchase turnover of coconuts estimated for both the years to the declared sale turnover and re-compute the tax and issue a revised demand notice accordingly. Thereafter the revisional authority has chosen to issue notice and has chosen to pass the impugned order. This order is challenged by the appellant. In terms of the argument, we have carefully seen the material on record. The revising authority after noticing the judgment in the case of Hotel Mayura, has chosen to determine the turnover by adopting 5 times of the establishment expenses as the taxable turnover. At this stage we must refer to the order of the assessing authority wherein he has chosen to pass an adverse order in the light of compounding of the offence by the assessee. This court in 90 STC 115 has ruled that the facts found in the compounding proceedings may not by themselves be material in the assessment proceedings. The assessing authority will have to rest the assessment in the light of the materials available to him. Since the assessment order was passed in the case on hand only on compounding, the appellate authority rightly in our view has chosen to allow the appeal. In fact he has noticed in the order that there is no sales suppression except observing that there were 32 workers as against 26 workers. Since the assessment order was passed in the case on hand only on compounding, the appellate authority rightly in our view has chosen to allow the appeal. In fact he has noticed in the order that there is no sales suppression except observing that there were 32 workers as against 26 workers. The revising authority has chosen to revise the order on the ground of prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The revising authority noticed that the assessment was passed on the basis of five time of establishment expenditure. The revising authority was of the view that on scrutiny of list of purchases it is noted that the actual purchase of coconut are noted at Rs. 18,250/- and Rs. 50,265/- for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively, which could be added back to the taxable turnover to be determined as discussed above and the assessment modified accordingly. Having noticed this, it is surprising for us to noted that he has chosen to uphold the order of the assessing authority. Sec. 22-A would provide for revision in the matter. Revising powers can be exercised in a reasonable manner. When the appellate authority noticed the errors and has chosen to pass an order for reconsideration, the revising authority would not be justified in enhancing the assessment by a different method in terms of the power under Sec. 22-A of the Act. This has been made clear by a judgment of this court in 89 STC 91 wherein it is ruled as under : "If an order made in any proceeding under the KST Act, 1957 is found to be erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the order is revisable under Sec. 22A of the Act. "Error" here should be error in approach, error in computation, error in applying the relevant law or facts, or error in selecting a principle which would not govern the fact situation; arbitrary exercise of the appellate power certainly would fall within the scope of section 22A. The fact that by resort to a different method, a larger tax can be levied and collected cannot be levied and collected cannot be the sole consideration to attract the revision under Sec. 22-A, unless the said method is the only mode legally applicable. The fact that by resort to a different method, a larger tax can be levied and collected cannot be levied and collected cannot be the sole consideration to attract the revision under Sec. 22-A, unless the said method is the only mode legally applicable. The scope of interference under this section is not to set aside merely unfavourable orders and bring more revenue to the treasury. Nor is the section meant to get at sheer escapement of revenue which is taken care of any provisions elsewhere in the Act such, for instance, as section 147 of the Act. The prejudice must be prejudice to the revenue administration." The said judgment would be equally applicable to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, the revising authority in our view is not justified in passing the revising order on the facts of this case. At this stage, we must also notice a recent judgment of this court reported in 119 STC 84 wherein this court held as under; "Times have changed and the cost of materials have changed and the formula which is so far applied may not be universally applicable. There must be some reasonable nexus to the reasonable material. The best judgment assessment and determination must be based on some evidence on record." The said judgment is equally applicable to the facts of this case particularly in the light of the assessing authority passing an order based on admission, without taking note of the relevant material by enhancing five times. In these circumstances and on the facts of this case we deem it proper to accept this petition. The impugned orders passed by the revising authority and the assessing authority are set aside. Matter is remitted back to the assessing officer for holding a fresh enquiry with regard to the percentage of establishment expenses in accordance with law. In the light of this remand order, the questions of law remain un-answered. Liberty is reserved to the assessing officer to seek such information as is necessary for the purpose of a fresh assessment order. Parties are directed to appear before the assessing officer without waiting for any notice on 25.10.2006. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file such documents as are necessary in support of his case. Liberty is reserved to the assessing officer to seek such information as is necessary for the purpose of a fresh assessment order. Parties are directed to appear before the assessing officer without waiting for any notice on 25.10.2006. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file such documents as are necessary in support of his case. The assessing authority is directed to consider the material already available on record and the additional material if any and thereafter proceed to pass orders in accordance with law, without in any way being influenced by the earlier order or by this order. All contentions are left open. The assessing officer is directed to complete the proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. No costs.