Concurrent findings of fact in VAT second appeal cannot be disturbed absent perversity; penalty challenge failed.

A second appeal under the Bihar Value Added Tax Act was maintainable only if it raised a substantial question of law. The dispute depended on factual inferences from the search and seizure record, stock register and related documents, and the assessing authority, appellate authority and Tribunal had concurrently found that four purchases were not entered in the books and that the assessee's explanation was unacceptable. Those concurrent findings were not open to reappreciation in second appellate jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or impossible on the record. No such perversity or legal question was established, so interference was declined and the penalty challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 79 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 raised any substantial question of law warranting interference with concurrent findings of fact, and whether the penalty imposed under Section 32(1) of the Act could be disturbed on the basis of the factual explanation offered by the assessee.

Analysis: The appeal lay only if the case involved a substantial question of law. The disputed matter turned on the factual inference drawn from the search and seizure, the stock register, and the connected documents. The assessing authority, the appellate authority, and the Tribunal had concurrently found that the four purchases had not been entered in the books and that the explanation offered was unacceptable. In second appellate jurisdiction, such concurrent findings of fact are not to be reappreciated merely because another view may be possible. Interference is justified only where the findings are perverse or such that no properly instructed person could reach them on the materials on record. The Court found no such perversity or legal question in the appeal.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The concurrent factual findings were not open to interference, and the challenge to the penalty failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a statutory second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse, and a mere attempt to reargue factual issues does not constitute a substantial question of law.

---