Form IIIB concessional tax claim fails where genuine sale is unproved and revision cannot reappreciate facts.

A dealer claiming exemption or concessional tax treatment against Form IIIB had to prove a genuine sale transaction with reasonable certainty, and the claim failed because the purchasing concern was found non-existent and unregistered, the form was issued to another dealer, and the despatch and receipt of goods were not satisfactorily established. The Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the record, including doubts arising from bank draft receipts, and disclosed no perversity or error of law. Revisional jurisdiction under section 11 was confined to questions of law, so re-appreciation of evidence was impermissible and the Tribunal's conclusions stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer was entitled to exemption or concessional rate of tax on sales said to have been made against form IIIB, and whether the revisional court could interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings.

Analysis: The claim to benefit under form IIIB failed because the purchasing concern was found to be non-existent and unregistered, and the form was shown to have been issued to another dealer. The Tribunal also found that the alleged sale transaction was not proved with reasonable certainty, the despatch and receipt of goods were not satisfactorily explained, and the receipts through bank drafts supported the doubt surrounding the transaction. The burden to establish entitlement to exemption or concessional treatment lay on the dealer, and the record disclosed no error of law or perversity in the factual findings. The revisional jurisdiction under section 11 was confined to questions of law and did not permit re-appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The dealer was not entitled to the benefit of form IIIB, and the Tribunal's findings could not be interfered with in revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the disputed turnover was not proved to be covered by a genuine concessional sale transaction, and the revisional court found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's conclusions.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer seeking exemption or concessional tax treatment must prove the transaction with reasonable certainty, and revisional interference is not warranted on mere requests to re-appreciate factual findings absent an error of law or perversity.

---