Interstate transit of goods and perversity review limit revisional interference where concurrent findings reject clandestine delivery.

Transit documents supported the claim that goods were moving from Delhi to Madhya Pradesh, and the fact-finding authorities accepted that there was no clandestine delivery within Rajasthan. The High Court held that those concurrent findings were a plausible view on the evidence, especially where the assessing officer relied on an unverified report and an untested driver statement while ignoring registration papers, challans and affidavits. In revision, interference was not justified unless the findings were perverse. Accordingly, the levy of tax, surcharge and penalty on the in-transit goods was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether tax, surcharge and penalty could be levied on goods found in transit through Rajasthan on the basis that they were intended for clandestine delivery within Rajasthan, and whether the revisional court could interfere with concurrent factual findings rejecting such levy.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the goods were accompanied by transit documents and were being carried from Delhi to Mandasur in Madhya Pradesh. The appellate authority and the Tax Board found that the assessing officer had relied on an unverified report and an untested statement of the driver, while ignoring the registration documents, challans and affidavits supporting the interstate transit claim. Those findings were factual findings based on appreciation of competing evidence and were held to be a possible view on record. In revision under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, interference was unwarranted unless the findings were shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The levy of tax, surcharge and penalty was not sustainable, and the revision failed.

Final Conclusion: The order disallowing the tax and penalty demand was upheld on the ground that the goods were in lawful transit and the factual findings against the revenue were not perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: Where transit documents support interstate movement of goods and the fact-finding authorities return a plausible conclusion on evidence that there was no clandestine delivery within the State, revisional interference is unavailable absent perversity.

---