Pure questions of fact defeat revision where imported-versus-local purchase dispute was resolved on record evidence.

The Tribunal's finding that the dealer was not a manufacturer and had purchased ice-cream within Uttar Pradesh from a manufacturer at Sahibabad, rather than importing it from outside the State, was based on a detailed appraisal of the record. The High Court held that the questions whether the goods were imported or locally purchased were pure questions of fact, and no legal error in the Tribunal's determination was shown. No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, so the revision was not maintainable on the facts found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer's turnover of ice-cream was taxable and whether the Tribunal had committed any legal error in treating the dispute about import of goods versus intra-State purchase as a question of fact.

Analysis: The revision arose from the Tribunal's finding that the dealer was not a manufacturer and that the ice-cream had been purchased within Uttar Pradesh from a manufacturer at Sahibabad, rather than imported from outside the State. The Tribunal's conclusion rested on a detailed appraisal of the record. The challenge before the High Court turned entirely on whether those findings could be disturbed in revision. The Court held that the questions whether the dealer had imported the ice-cream or had purchased it within Uttar Pradesh were pure questions of fact, and no legal error in the Tribunal's determination of those facts was shown.

Conclusion: No question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the revision was not maintainable on the facts found.

---