Reference jurisdiction limits High Court interference with Tribunal findings unless the factual conclusion is unsupported or perverse.

In a reference under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, the High Court's role was confined to questions of law arising from the Tribunal's findings of fact. The Court reiterated that it cannot reappraise evidence or substitute its own factual inference for the Tribunal's conclusion unless the finding is unsupported by evidence or is perverse. Applying that distinction, the issue whether the assessee contracted with a Rajkot party and thereby caused movement of goods from Gujarat to Rajasthan was treated as a factual inference on the record. As no proper perversity challenge was made, the Tribunal's finding that the transactions were inter-State sales, not consignment sales, stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a reference under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, the High Court could reappraise the evidence and interfere with the Tribunal's finding that the impugned transactions were inter-State sales and not consignment sales.

Analysis: The reference jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to questions of law arising on the facts found by the Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding authority. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the Tribunal's appraisal of evidence or substitute its own factual conclusion unless the finding is unsupported by evidence or is perverse. The distinction between a question of law and a pure finding of fact was applied to hold that the question whether the assessee had contracted with a Rajkot party and, as a result, the goods moved from Gujarat to Rajasthan was a factual inference on the recorded material. Since the assessee had not properly challenged the factual foundation on the ground of perversity, the Tribunal's conclusion had to be accepted.

Conclusion: The High Court could not interfere with the Tribunal's factual finding, and the question referred had to be answered in favour of the revenue.

---