Revisional jurisdiction and cross-examination rights fail where concurrent findings show affidavit evidence inconsistent with seized records.

Revisional jurisdiction under the applicable trade tax law is limited to questions of law, so mere disagreement with concurrent factual findings does not justify interference. Where account books were rejected on material from a survey and the authorities found the supporting affidavit inconsistent with seized diary entries, the objection that the affidavit-maker was not examined and cross-examination was refused did not raise a legal issue. Because the affidavit was filed by the assessee itself, the witness was treated as the assessee's own witness, and no enforceable right to compel cross-examination of the department was shown. No perversity, patent illegality, or record contradiction was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the non-examination of the person who filed an affidavit supporting the assessee's stand, and the refusal of cross-examination, vitiated the proceedings and gave rise to a question of law warranting revisional interference.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under the applicable trade tax enactments is confined to cases where a question of law arises. Mere disagreement with factual findings does not constitute such a question. The account books were rejected on the basis of material found in survey, and the authorities recorded concurrent findings that the affidavit was inconsistent with the seized diary entries. Since the affidavit was filed by the assessee itself, the witness was treated as the assessee's own witness, and no right to compel cross-examination of the department was made out. No perversity, patent illegality, or contradiction with the record was shown in the factual findings.

Conclusion: The objection regarding non-examination and cross-examination was rejected, no question of law arose, and revisional interference was unwarranted.

---