Tax revision barred by factual findings and mandatory service-compliance defects under the High Court Rules.

A tax revision under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be maintained where the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact and the record disclosed no material error or question of law. The revisional challenge therefore failed on merits because it sought to reopen factual findings only. Independently, Rule 5(2) of Chapter 27 of the High Court Rules required service on the assessee and filing of an affidavit of service, with only limited dispensation. Persistent non-compliance with that mandatory procedural safeguard also justified rejection of the revision. The challenge was thus unsustainable both on merits and for procedural default.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision could survive when the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact and no question of law arose; and (ii) whether failure to file the affidavit of service required by the High Court Rules justified dismissal of the revenue's revision.

Issue (i): whether the revision could survive when the Tribunal had recorded findings of fact and no question of law arose.

Analysis: The revision lay under Section 11(1) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Tribunal had recorded findings of fact, and no material was shown to establish any error of fact or law. In the absence of a question of law, the revisional challenge could not be sustained on merits.

Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable on merits and failed on the ground that only findings of fact were under challenge.

Issue (ii): whether failure to file the affidavit of service required by the High Court Rules justified dismissal of the revenue's revision.

Analysis: Rule 5(2) of Chapter 27 of the High Court Rules, 1952 required the Commissioner to serve the assessee and file an affidavit of service, with only a limited dispensation where reasons existed and the affidavit was filed within three weeks. The revision had remained pending for years without compliance, and the mandatory procedural safeguard had not been satisfied.

Conclusion: The revision was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the procedural requirement of service and affidavit filing.

Final Conclusion: The revision could not be sustained either on merits or on procedure, and the assessee succeeded in resisting the revisional challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax revision cannot be sustained where it raises no question of law from findings of fact, and persistent non-compliance with a mandatory service-and-affidavit requirement under the governing procedural rules is a valid ground to dismiss the proceeding.

---