Concurrent factual findings on tax-paid goods and no tax evasion bar revisional interference and defeat penalty

Concurrent findings that goods found in transit were tax-paid, procured for vehicle repair, and not intended for tax evasion justified deletion of penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The High Court held that, where the controversy turned purely on facts and the appellate authority and Tax Board found no illegality, error, or perversity, revision under section 86 would not lie. The penalty was therefore unsustainable on the facts recorded, and no revisional interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was liable to be sustained where the goods found in transit were held by the lower authorities to be tax-paid, procured for use in vehicle repair, and there was no intention to evade tax; and whether any interference was called for in revision under section 86 of the Act.

Analysis: The material on record showed concurrent factual findings by the appellate authority and the Tax Board that the black oil was purchased from mechanics for use in vehicle repair, had already suffered tax, and no tax evasion was established. The Court found no illegality, error, or perversity in those findings. In such circumstances, the revisional court would not interfere, particularly when the controversy turned purely on facts and no question of law arose.

Conclusion: The penalty was held unsustainable on the facts found by the lower authorities, and no revisional interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed and the penalty deletion by the lower authorities remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact that goods were tax-paid and not intended for tax evasion cannot be interfered with in revision unless illegality, error, or perversity is shown, and such factual determinations do not give rise to a question of law.

---