No substantial question of law where transit goods lacked documents and concurrent findings supported tax evasion presumption

Goods intercepted in transit without the documents required under the relevant provision were treated by the authorities and Tribunal as attracting the statutory presumption of an attempt to evade tax. The later claim that the goods were intended for export supply was rejected as an afterthought, and the concurrent factual findings were upheld because no material was shown to have been ignored or any incorrect legal provision applied. On that basis, the view that the penalty provision applied was held to be a possible view on facts, and no perversity was demonstrated, so no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent finding that the goods were transported without documents and that the presumption of attempt to evade tax under the Act was not rebutted gave rise to any substantial question of law.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted while being transported without the documents required under the relevant provision. The statutory authorities and the Tribunal concurrently rejected the plea that the goods were meant for export supply, treating the later production of documents as an afterthought. The finding was based on evidence and no material was shown to have been ignored or any incorrect legal provision applied. In such circumstances, the conclusion that the transportation attracted the penalty provision was a possible view on facts, and no perversity was demonstrated.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the penalty failed.

---