Mandatory search procedure under sales tax law controls penalty deletion where concurrent findings show no perversity or legal error.

Mandatory compliance with Rule 50 governing search and seizure under Section 77 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was treated as essential, and the concurrent findings were that the procedure was not followed because no two witnesses were present and only the director's statement was recorded. The authorities also found that the goods were excisable and that tax had been charged in the bill. In the absence of perversity or legal error, those factual findings did not raise any substantial question of law in revision, and the penalty deletion was upheld; the Revenue's revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Rule 50 in the course of search under Section 77 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act vitiated the penalty and whether any substantial question of law arose for interference.

Analysis: Rule 50 prescribes the procedure for search and seizure under Section 77 and uses mandatory language. The findings recorded by the appellate authorities were that no two witnesses were present at the time of survey, only the statement of the director was recorded, and thus the statutory procedure was not followed. The authorities also found that the goods were excisable and that tax had been charged in the bill. These were concurrent findings of fact, and no perversity or legal error was shown in the order of the Tax Board.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Rule 50 was fatal to the Revenue's case, the penalty was rightly deleted, and no substantial question of law arose. The decision was in favour of the assessee on the merits, and the Revenue's revision failed.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings that the mandatory search procedure was not followed and that the goods were supported by a bill with tax charged left no basis for interference in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory search procedure framed in mandatory terms is not complied with, concurrent factual findings deleting the penalty will not give rise to a substantial question of law in revision absent perversity or legal error.

---