High Court revision limits and proof of taxable turnover require a question of law and evidence, not mere presumption.

In tax revision, a High Court cannot interfere with a Tribunal's factual finding unless a question of law arises; the Tribunal's conclusion that the Revenue had not proved that additional income represented taxable business transactions therefore stood. Disclosed additional income also cannot be treated as sales turnover on a bare presumption that it came from unaccounted sales, because a taxable nexus must be supported by material evidence. The Tribunal's view was restored and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in tax revision, could interfere with the Tribunal's finding when no question of law arose. (ii) Whether the assessee's disclosed additional income could, without supporting material, be treated as turnover from sales liable to sales tax.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in tax revision, could interfere with the Tribunal's finding when no question of law arose.

Analysis: The Tribunal had reached a factual conclusion that the sales tax authorities had not shown that the additional income represented business transactions exigible to sales tax. Interference in revision was sought only on that factual assessment, and no legal issue was shown to arise from it.

Conclusion: The High Court lacked jurisdiction to upset the Tribunal's order in revision in the absence of any question of law.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's disclosed additional income could, without supporting material, be treated as turnover from sales liable to sales tax.

Analysis: The assessing authority relied on a bare presumption that the additional income represented profits from unaccounted sales. No material was shown to connect the disclosed income with taxable sales transactions, and the presumption was not supported by evidence.

Conclusion: The additional income could not be treated as sales turnover without material establishing that it arose from transactions liable to sales tax.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was restored and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, a High Court cannot disturb a Tribunal's factual finding unless a question of law arises, and sales turnover cannot be inferred from disclosed income on a mere presumption without material linking it to taxable transactions.

---