Concurrent factual findings barred revisional interference with VAT penalty for goods outside the regular records.

Concurrent findings that the seized goods did not match the documents produced at interception, and that the vehicle route, timing, and declared weight were inconsistent with the assessee's version, supported the conclusion that the goods were dealt with outside the regular records under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The HC held that such pure findings of fact did not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 58 absent illegality or perversity. The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was also treated as fair, and the penalty was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings upholding penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for dealing with goods outside the record.

Analysis: The authorities below and the Tribunal recorded concurrent factual findings that the seized goods did not tally with the documents produced at the time of interception, that the vehicle route and timing were inconsistent with the assessee's version, and that the declared weight differed from the actual weight. On those facts, the goods were held to have been dealt with outside the regular records, justifying imposition of penalty. The High Court noted that such pure findings of fact did not warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 58 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Tribunal was also found to have acted fairly in reducing the penalty by Rs. 50,000.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and no interference was called for in revision.

Final Conclusion: Concurrent factual findings sustaining the penalty were left undisturbed, and the revisional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact supporting penalty under the value added tax law are not ordinarily open to interference in revisional jurisdiction absent illegality or perversity.

---