Concurrent findings on mis-description of goods and tax evasion do not raise a substantial question of law absent perversity.

Concurrent findings that the goods in the trucks did not match the invoice and supporting documents, and that the papers described rolling material while the consignments were actually melting iron scrap, were treated as factual findings showing mis-description and intent to evade tax. As no illegality or perversity in those findings was demonstrated, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in second appeal. The finding of evasion, along with the penalty order and adverse concurrent findings, was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings recording mis-description of goods and intention to evade tax suffered from any illegality or perversity so as to give rise to a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The goods carried in the trucks were found not to tally with the invoice and the accompanying documents were held to relate to rolling material, whereas the goods were actually found to be melting iron scrap. The authorities below concluded on the basis of the evidence that the documents were not genuine for the goods carried, that the scrap was not properly accounted for, and that the appellant misrepresented the nature of the goods with an intention to conceal the true facts and evade tax. No illegality or perversity in these concurrent findings was demonstrated.

Conclusion: The finding of evasion was upheld and no substantial question of law arose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the penalty order and the concurrent adverse findings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent findings of fact, unless shown to be illegal or perverse, do not raise a substantial question of law in second appeal.

---