Pure finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction cannot be interfered with absent illegality, the High Court held.

A pure finding of fact by the Tribunal that purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals, and not on the dealer's own account, could not be disturbed in revision absent illegality. On that factual basis, the transactions were treated as occurring in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, so no taxable inter-State sales arose under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The revisional court found no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting interference under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, and the Tribunal's finding was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the purchases were made on behalf of ex-U.P. principals, and not on the dealer's own account, could be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The Tribunal reversed the authorities below on the factual question of agency and held that the purchases of gur were made for ex-U.P. principals. On that basis, the transactions were treated as being in the course of inter-State trade and commerce, with no taxable inter-State sales under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The revisional court found that this was a pure finding of fact and that no illegality warranting interference under section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was shown.

Conclusion: The finding of the Tribunal was not disturbed and the revisions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A pure finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless illegality is shown.

---