Inference from proved facts on suppressed purchases did not raise a question of law; turnover enhancement followed automatically.

An inference of suppression of purchase transactions, drawn by the Tribunal and subordinate authorities from proved facts and surrounding circumstances, did not itself raise a question of law under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The disputed transaction was linked to the assessee through an entry found at another dealer's premises, and the taxing authorities rejected the assessee's explanation on appreciation of the record. Once that factual finding was accepted, enhancement of gross turnover and taxable turnover followed as a consequential matter and did not create any separate legal issue. The reference was therefore answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding that the assessee suppressed purchase transactions and the consequential enhancement of turnover gave rise to any question of law.

Analysis: The reference arose under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. The disputed transaction was found in the premises of another dealer, was linked to the assessee through the entry and surrounding circumstances, and the taxing authorities disbelieved the assessee's explanation. The finding recorded by the Tribunal and the subordinate authorities was treated as an inference drawn from proved facts. Such an inference, based on appreciation of materials on record, did not convert the controversy into a question of law. Once the factual finding of suppression of purchases was accepted, the consequential enhancement of gross turnover and taxable turnover followed as a matter of course and did not independently raise any legal issue.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue; no question of law arose from the factual findings.

---