Recovered business records sustained taxable turnover finding and discretionary penalty reduction was left undisturbed.

Turnover treated as taxable where recovered inspection records, lorry way bills and surrounding documents supported the finding that the goods sold were bags, not exempt HDPE fabrics. The court treated this as a factual conclusion, declined to re-open the evidence in revision, and held that no substantial question of law arose. On penalty, the statutory provisions allowed imposition within a 50% to 150% range of tax due on suppressed turnover, and the Tribunal's reduction of penalty to 75% was upheld as a proper exercise of discretion. The revisions therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment of the disputed turnover relating to the claim that the goods sold were exempt HDPE fabrics and in restoring the assessing authority's determination; (ii) Whether the penalty sustained under section 16(2) for 1987-88 and section 12(5)(iii) for 1988-89 required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the assessment of the disputed turnover relating to the claim that the goods sold were exempt HDPE fabrics and in restoring the assessing authority's determination?

Analysis: The dispute turned on appreciation of records recovered during inspection, the lorry way bills, and the surrounding documents. The revisional court treated the controversy as one of fact, noting that the remand proceedings required de novo consideration of the materials secured by the Revenue. On the reappraisal of those materials, the finding that the sales were of bags and not exempt fabrics was accepted. The court declined to re-open the computation by examining individual slips, holding that no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The assessment of the disputed turnover was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty sustained under section 16(2) for 1987-88 and section 12(5)(iii) for 1988-89 required interference?

Analysis: The penalty provisions authorised imposition within a range of 50 per cent to 150 per cent of the tax due on suppressed turnover or escaped assessment. The Tribunal had exercised discretion to reduce the penalty from 150 per cent to 75 per cent, taking the facts and circumstances into account. The revisional court found no reason to disturb that discretionary exercise, especially where suppression had been found on the materials.

Conclusion: The penalty as reduced by the Tribunal was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the disputed turnover findings were factual and the modified penalty did not call for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Findings based on recovered business records and other contemporaneous materials, when treated as questions of fact, will not be interfered with in revision absent a substantial question of law; discretionary statutory penalty within the prescribed range will ordinarily stand unless shown to be perverse or illegal.

---