Concurrent findings on misuse of declaration form barred writ interference where no perversity or substantial question of law was shown.

Concurrent factual findings that Form ST-17 had been misused and that no purchases were made from the named dealer were upheld, because the assessee had promptly reported the theft or misuse and lodged an FIR, while the revenue failed to prove the alleged taxable transaction by proper verification. As the dispute depended on appreciation of evidence and no perversity or substantial question of law was shown, writ interference was refused and the levy was not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment and levy based on alleged misuse of declaration Form ST-17 called for interference in writ jurisdiction in view of the concurrent factual findings of the appellate authorities.

Analysis: The respondent had promptly informed the assessing authority of the theft or misuse of the declaration form and had also lodged an FIR. The Income Tax authority had, on the material before it, found that no purchases had been made by the respondent from the named dealer and that the dealer had misused the declaration form to show bogus sales. The appellate authorities accepted this factual position and held that the revenue had not established the alleged tax liability by proper verification. In the absence of perversity in those findings, and as the dispute turned on appreciation of evidence, no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the concurrent findings failed and the levy was not sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, leaving intact the factual findings that the declaration form had been misused and that the revenue had not proved the alleged taxable transaction against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where appellate authorities return concurrent findings on evidence and no perversity or substantial question of law is shown, the court will not interfere with the assessment outcome.

---