Revisional interference and reasoned fact-finding: concurrent sales findings stood, but a remand was required for independent Tribunal analysis.

Revisional interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted unless illegality or perversity is shown; on assessment year 1991-92, the finding that the vehicle transfers were inter-State sales based on seized material was treated as a pure finding of fact and left undisturbed. For assessment year 1992-93, the Tribunal, as the fact-finding authority, was required to give its own reasoned finding on whether 16 vehicles were stock transfers or inter-State sales; its mere concurrence with the lower authority was insufficient. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration on that issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional court could interfere with concurrent factual findings treating the transactions for assessment year 1991-92 as inter-State sales. (ii) Whether the Tribunal had to record its own reasoned finding on whether the 16 vehicles for assessment year 1992-93 were stock transfers or inter-State sales, and whether the matter required remand.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional court could interfere with concurrent factual findings treating the transactions for assessment year 1991-92 as inter-State sales.

Analysis: The finding that the dealer had transferred vehicles outside Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of purchase orders was based on seized material and the explanations furnished by the dealer had been considered and rejected by the authorities. Such acceptance or rejection of explanation lies within the domain of the fact-finding authority. In revisional jurisdiction, interference is not warranted with concurrent findings of fact unless illegality or perversity is shown.

Conclusion: The finding for assessment year 1991-92 was a pure finding of fact and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had to record its own reasoned finding on whether the 16 vehicles for assessment year 1992-93 were stock transfers or inter-State sales, and whether the matter required remand.

Analysis: The Tribunal had only expressed general agreement with the first appellate authority and had not given an independent finding on the dealer's specific case that the vehicles were sold from the depot without any prior contract. As the last fact-finding authority, the Tribunal was required to examine that contention and record its own reasoning, even briefly, on the nature of the transactions.

Conclusion: The order for assessment year 1992-93 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were disposed of by sustaining the factual finding for one assessment year and directing fresh adjudication for the other.

---