ORDER MRS. PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. - The assessee is aggrieved by the suo motu revision initiated by the Joint Commissioner. The assessee is running a hotel business near Namakkal bus stand. Authorities inspected his place of business on May 29, 1990, August 14, 1990 and March 23, 1991. Sales recorded on those days were Rs. 4,506.75, Rs. 5,450 and Rs. 5,207, respectively. The assessing officer worked out the average of sales recorded on August 14, 1990 and March 23, 1991 along and arrived at a figure of Rs. 5,329. Number of working holidays was fixed at 363 days, excluding Deepavali and Pongal and the annual sales turnover that attracted. Liability under section 7A of the Act was also arrived and fixed at Rs. 3,13,760 as follows : Ground oil, Ghee and vanaspathy ... Rs. 2,61,805 Coffee powder ... Rs. 33,380 Kerosene ... Rs. 18,575 ---------------- Rs. 3,13,760 ---------------- The total taxable sales were calculated at Rs. 22,48,187. The appellate authority found that the books of account cannot be rejected on the ground that the bills were not produced and that it is practically not possible to maintain small sales bill issued to the customers and that the appellant is maintaining daily sales register in a proper manner and that the rejection of the entire books of accounts is not proper. The appellate authority also found that the two days of inspection which were taken into account were, days prior to Independence Day and the shandy day at Namakkal, when the floating population is high and consequently, sales will also be high. As regards the turnover estimated under section 7A, the assessing authority deleted the purchase turnover of kerosene and as regards groundnut oil, ghee, vanaspathy and coffee powder, sustained the turnover assessed by the assessing officer which was Rs. 2,95,185. The assessing officer found that the kind of understatement of actual daily sales through records was never deducted in this case, and "further, no purchase or sales suppression was found ... was only the total sale for those days which had duly shown in their total accounts. What was found by them as total sales for each day of survey were not the suppressed sales for their accounts". Therefore, excepting the turnover as per the accounts which was Rs. 13,66,441, he added 10 per cent for defects and the total taxable turnover was thereupon refixed at Rs. 17,98,270. What was found by them as total sales for each day of survey were not the suppressed sales for their accounts". Therefore, excepting the turnover as per the accounts which was Rs. 13,66,441, he added 10 per cent for defects and the total taxable turnover was thereupon refixed at Rs. 17,98,270. A show-cause notice was issued on September 3, 1996 for exercising its powers of suo motu revision and the Joint Commissioner after hearing the parties, felt that the decisions referred by the authorities related to cases where there was only one day's inspection and since in this case there were two days sales, those decisions would not apply. He referred to the assessing officer's finding regarding not maintaining the pay-in-slips/sale bills and the entire purchase being not covered by purchase bills, were not taken note of by the appellate authority. In all fairness, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have adopted the average of all three inspection of 356 days at Rs. 18,14,176, in addition to tax. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner, this tax case has been filed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee would submit that the impugned order does not show that there was justification for invoking the power of suo motu revision. The power of suo motu is circumscribed by words subject to the provisions of this Act and there cannot be any untrammelled power of revision. More importantly, the learned senior counsel submitted that the categoric finding of the appellate authority that there was no suppression of sales or purchase has not been interfered with by the Joint Commissioner. The learned senior counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions : Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516 (Mad). Sankar and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu [1980] 46 STC 32 (Mad). A. Velayutha Raja v. Board of Revenue (C.T.), Madras [1970] 26 STC 176 (Mad). The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that there are many cases where there may be loss of revenue and the Joint Commissioner is well within his powers to interfere. The learned Special Government Pleader referred to New Dwaraka Lunch Home v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 91 STC 36 (AP). The appellate authority has not interfered with the assessment order without giving reasons. The learned Special Government Pleader referred to New Dwaraka Lunch Home v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 91 STC 36 (AP). The appellate authority has not interfered with the assessment order without giving reasons. He has stated clearly that shandy day at Namakkal and a day prior to Independence Day were rush days and consequently, sales on those days will normally be higher than the regular day sales and sales on those exceptional days should not be taken into account as sale on regular normal days. He has referred to Punjab Gun House v. State of Punjab [1985] 58 STC 299 (P&H). The learned senior counsel also referred to Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516 (Mad). In Hotel Vallalar v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal, Chennai [2008] 15 VST 516, this court had held, referring to State of Tamil Nadu v. New Kamaliya Hotel [2006] 147 STC 111 that "mere one day sales could not be attributed to estimate the whole year without considering the festival season, rainy season and other calamities" and that the sales may differ from auspicious day and inauspicious day and may not be uniform throughout the year and that if the result of one day sales is supported by other materials like non-maintenance of stock account or regular maintenance account or defective incomplete accounts, other incriminating materials available to support such a finding, then, no exception could be taken on an estimation based on one day sales results. In this case, the factual finding is that there is no purchase or sales suppression in their accounts and that sales are maintained in register. It is on this ground that the appellate authority found that the amount of Rs. 5,329 per day uniformly cannot be taken as the sales turnover because sale took place on two special days. The Joint Commissioner in his notice does not say why the order is not correct. He merely says : "The assessing officer has correctly adopted only the average sales at Rs. 5,329 based on the sales recorded on August 14, 1990, Rs. 5,450 and on March 23, 1991 as Rs. 5,207. Since the assessment has been made on survey conducted on August 14, 1990 and March 23, 1991 the estimation made by the assessing officer is reasonable. 5,329 based on the sales recorded on August 14, 1990, Rs. 5,450 and on March 23, 1991 as Rs. 5,207. Since the assessment has been made on survey conducted on August 14, 1990 and March 23, 1991 the estimation made by the assessing officer is reasonable. The finding that the sales turnover noticed during the inspection has been accounted, the book is not correct inasmuch as this turnover would not have been accounted in their accounts but for the inspection. In view of the above, the order of the assessing officer is legally correct and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have confirmed the assessment." Even in his order, the Joint Commissioner has not set aside the finding of the appellate authority regarding non-suppression of purchase or sales. In these circumstances, we do not find that the Joint Commissioner was justified in interfering with the appellate authority's order. In fact, the decision, New Dwaraka Lunch Home v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1993] 91 STC 36 (AP), cited by the learned special Government Pleader only supports the assessee's case. It is a short order and we extract it as below : "The short question involved in this revision is whether the authorities below, including the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, were justified in holding that the petitioner was guilty of suppression of turnover of sales and purchases of articles while dealing in cooked food in the name and style of M/s. New Dwaraka Lunch Home at Kakinada. It has been found as a fact by the authorities below that as compared to the returned turnover, the actual turnover of the petitioner was much more. That estimate was made on the basis of the inspection made on spot by the Commercial Tax Officer on October 12, 1987, at 8.40 p.m. in the hotel. It was found that there was cash of Rs. 3,600. It was not supported by various relevant bills and the accounts also were not found to be properly maintained. On the basis of this material, the Commercial Tax Officer made an estimate of purchases and sales undertaken by the petitioner during the year and consequently, sales tax was levied, after computing the suppressed sales and purchases. These findings are based on relevant evidence and cannot be interfered with. On the basis of this material, the Commercial Tax Officer made an estimate of purchases and sales undertaken by the petitioner during the year and consequently, sales tax was levied, after computing the suppressed sales and purchases. These findings are based on relevant evidence and cannot be interfered with. The Tribunal was justified in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H. M. Esufali, H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77 and in holding that on the basis of one day's inspection where the suppressed sales could be detected, estimate could be made for the whole year. 2. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in Padmavathi Paddy and Rice Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1971] 27 STC 30 (AP) for the proposition that some other evidence is required in addition to what was found on a day's inspection, is of no avail for two reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court's decision (Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H. M. Esufali, H. M. Abdulali [1973] 32 STC 77) on the point squarely applies to the case on hand and it has to be followed, and secondly on the ground that there is additional evidence, as indicated above, from which it could be inferred that Rs. 3,600 found on the night of inspection represented suppressed sales. 3. For all the above reasons, therefore, no case is made out for our interference in this revision. The revision case is, therefore, rejected. No costs." The appellate authority has considered everything in detail and has given acceptable reasons for his conclusion. He has also taken into account the cost of sales recorded five days prior to the date of inspection and five days after the date of inspection that is, August 14, 1990 and March 23, 1991 and he also found that the sales recorded on these two days were not recorded on any other day. Therefore, he has held that the sales recorded on these days were exceptional cases. He also found that there was no purchase or sales suppression in their accounts. He would state that the inspecting authorities have found only the total sales for those days which was duly shown in their accounts and it was not suppressed sales and there was no proven understatement regarding actual daily sale on any day. He also found that there was no purchase or sales suppression in their accounts. He would state that the inspecting authorities have found only the total sales for those days which was duly shown in their accounts and it was not suppressed sales and there was no proven understatement regarding actual daily sale on any day. His finding is that neither understatement nor suppression was established. On this ground he adopted a procedure to arrive at what would be the average daily sales. No reason is given by the Joint Commissioner for setting aside the above findings or to show that the procedure is wrong. He merely says that the Appellate Commissioner is not correct and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ought to have adopted the average of all the three inspection of 356 days at Rs. 18,14,176 in addition to tax under section 7A. In Sabari Foundry v. State of Tamil Nadu [1992] 86 STC 443, this Bench held that the Joint Commissioner while exercising his powers of revision should have adverted and considered the pleas raised on behalf of the assessees. This court held thus : "4. The Joint Commissioner, however, we find, after dealing with the jurisdiction under section 34 of the Act, did not advert to or consider the other pleas raised on behalf of the assessees in the reply to the proposal and set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority. It was an obligation on the Joint Commissioner while disposing of the revision in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision to have dealt with the objections raised by the assessees and also consider whether or not the discretion had been properly exercised by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Joint Commissioner did not advert to those aspects at all and only after recording a finding that the suo motu powers of revision could be exercised by him in the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner did not advert to those aspects at all and only after recording a finding that the suo motu powers of revision could be exercised by him in the facts and circumstances of the case, against the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. That is clearly erroneous and the order of the Joint Commissioner on that aspect cannot be sustained and we have to set it aside to the extent indicated above." Again in V. Ramasamy & Brothers v. State of Tamil Nadu [1994] 93 STC 42 (Mad), the Division Bench frowned on what they held was exercise of power of revision in a casual manner and referred to Avon Plastics v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 268 (Mad) wherein it was held as follows : "... The power of suo motu revision by the Board of Revenue under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is not intended to be exercised in a routine or casual manner but only on special occasions. Therefore, unless it is found in any particular case that the discretion to exercise the appellate powers vested with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 31(3)(a) of the Act has been wrongly exercised, it would not be proper for the Board to interfere with the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. ..." and to C.P. Kuppuswamy & Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 51 STC 143 (Mad) to set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner. The Bench held that when the Appellate Commissioner has passed a well-considered order, the Joint Commissioner has exercised his power under section 34 very causally and held that : "We are of the opinion that the reasonableness would depend upon the facts of each case. Having regard to the features pointed out by us, we consider that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order could not have been properly interfered with on the facts of the case and therefore, we hold that the Joint Commissioner had no material to restore the assessment as made by the assessing authority. In our view, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have been left at that. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no material is placed before us to show that the first appellate authority has committed an error in refixing the turnover. In our view, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have been left at that. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no material is placed before us to show that the first appellate authority has committed an error in refixing the turnover. The view we take, the order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside, the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner shall stand restored. The tax case appeal is allowed. No costs." In Bharath Refineries and Oil Mills v. State of Tamil Nadu [1998] 111 STC 444 (Mad), it is held thus : "In the course of the order of the Commissioner, there is no discussion whatsoever of any of the documents, which the assessee had filed and their contents, viz., the agency agreement, the statements of account, form XX and form F, all of which were contemporaneous. The discussion in the Commissioner's order is only with reference to these two slips, and nothing is said about the other documents or their genuineness." If we apply the ratio in the above case, the Joint Commissioner has not exercised his power of revision correctly. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Joint Commissioner is set aside and the order of the appellate authority is confirmed. This revision is allowed. No costs.