Tribunal classification finding upheld where supported by evidence and not shown to be perverse in product dispute

A revision court will not interfere with a Tribunal's product-classification finding when it is a pure factual determination supported by evidence and not shown to be perverse or made without material. Here, the Tribunal found that the product's dominant ingredient was rice husk and that it was not a medicine, so the classification challenge failed and no question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's finding that the product was not a medicine but a commodity falling outside the revised classification was perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the nature of the product and its dominant ingredient. The Tribunal recorded a factual finding, after considering the ingredients, that the primary dominant component was rice husk and that the product could not be treated as a medicine. In revision, interference was warranted only if that finding was perverse or based on no evidence. As the Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority under the sales tax statute, and its conclusion was supported by acceptable material, no question of law arose.

Conclusion: The finding of the Tribunal was not perverse and did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The tax revision failed because the challenge was confined to a supported factual determination on classification, and the assessee's position was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision court will not interfere with a Tribunal's classification finding where it is a pure finding of fact supported by evidence and not shown to be perverse or without material.

---