Narayana Pai, J.
1. These two appeals are by the same assessee and relate to two assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The Commercial Tax Officer, the original assessing authority, determined his turnover on what is called the best judgment basis. The assessee runs a hotel. The officer therefore estimated his turnover by multiplying his establishment charges by 5. On that basis, he determined his turnover at Rs. 49,018.30 P. for the year 1960-61 and at Rs. 48,400 for the year 1961-62. He appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and pleaded that such large turnover could not have been properly and reasonably determined in his case because he has suffered during the relevant years, and also some time prior thereto, heavy losses in business on account of some litigation and that even the Income-tax Authorities had fixed his total turnover only at Rs. 25,000 for each of the years. He stated his case upon affidavit before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after examining the facts and satisfying himself that the difficulties pleaded by the assessee were genuine, reduced the turnover to Rs. 25,000 of each year. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has, thereupon, in the exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and restored that of the original authority with a small modification in regard to the ascertainment of the cost of establishment. The assessee has, therefore, appealed to this Court and contends that there was no basis for suo motu interference by the Commissioner.
2. The Commissioner can interfere if he finds that the order which he seeks to revise is illegal or improper. He does not point out any illegality in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. While characterising it as improper, he does not substantiate the same by any acceptable reasons. He observes however that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Apparently these ideas are relatable not to the Sales Tax Act but to the Agricultural Income-tax Act.
3. Even so, we find ourselves unable to accept as correct the opinion entertained by the Commissioner as sufficient justification to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
4. We do not think it can be stated correctly that there has been any prejudice to the revenue unless it can be shown at least prima facie that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was justly due has been imposed. The mere fact that upon appeal the liability for tax gets reduced is not in itself, in our opinion, sufficient ground for holding that there has been prejudice to the revenue.
5. Impropriety can be said to arise only where a decision is not based on evidence or is devoid of support in such evidence or where on a reading of the order it can be said that the decision is not in any sense related to the material on which it purports to proceed. The basis of the rule is that decision of adjudicatory bodies has necessarily to proceed upon evidence or material placed before them and not otherwise. It is lack of sufficient correlation between the evidence and the decision that constitutes a source of impropriety.
6. The Deputy Commissioner, in this case, we find, has applied his mind to very relevant circumstances and it was only after satisfying himself that the difficulties pleaded by the assessee were genuine that he has proceeded to give effect to them by reducing the estimated turnover of the assessee. When, therefore, he has proceeded upon relevant considerations, it is not, in our opinion, possible for the Commissioner to state that the Deputy Commissioner's order suffers from any impropriety attracting his powers of revision.
7. In the result, these two appeals are allowed, the orders of the Commissioner set aside and those of the Deputy Commissioner restored.
8. The appellant will have his costs in these appeals (one set) Advocate's fee Rs. 100.
9. Appeals allowed.