Concurrent findings of fact and adequate opportunity meant no substantial question of law arose in the tax reference challenge.

The Bombay HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's factual findings on the nature of the transactions and the adequacy of opportunity. The Tribunal had examined the agreements, invoices and surrounding materials and found that the dealings were local sales in Maharashtra under a principal-agent arrangement. The Court noted that notices had been served and that the assessee had opportunities at the assessment and appellate stages, so the attempt was only to re-appreciate evidence already considered. As the challenge concerned concurrent findings of fact and disclosed no legal error or perversity, the reference applications were rejected and the tax findings were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference applications raised any question of law when the Tribunal's conclusions rested on factual appreciation, and whether the assessee had been denied opportunity or was entitled to remand.

Analysis: The record showed that the Tribunal had already examined the nature of the transactions, the agreement between the parties, the invoices, and the surrounding materials, and had concluded that the transactions were local sales in Maharashtra through a principal-agent arrangement. The challenge before the Court was essentially an attempt to re-open concurrent findings of fact by contending that the material was not properly appreciated and that the assessee had lacked opportunity. The Court found that notices had been served, opportunity had been given at the assessment and appellate stages, and the submissions only sought re-appraisal of evidence already considered. Since the questions framed were factual and did not disclose any substantial question of law, no remand or reference was warranted.

Conclusion: The applications were not maintainable as references on any question of law and were rejected; the findings of tax liability on local sales were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence, especially on the nature of the transaction and adequacy of opportunity, do not give rise to a question of law unless a legal error or perversity is shown.

---